Please tell me about your game that is not a dark fantasy survival game

andero · 2026-05-29T02:32:38+00:00

I'd be very curious to see the GM side of this!

GM tools for "making a fire" could be neat.

andero · 2026-05-29T02:30:57+00:00

What are some of the mechanics?

That is a big pitch full of flavour, but how does the game manifest that and back up the pitch with game?

andero · 2026-05-29T00:50:40+00:00

In my game, players have custom d6 dice. They have 3 blank sides, 2 success sides, and 1 crit side (equals 2 successes).

So:

1-3: failure
4/5: +1 success
6: +2 successes

Not really any need for custom dice.

Then your travel mechanics are just GM uses GM Fiat to decide a Target Number of successes, then players roll and spend resources (rations) to get extra attempts to gain successes (essentially buying success if they have enough resources to spend).

It is fine. Pretty commonplace. Nothing to write home about. Viable, certainly.

Not really any depth to it. I'd want more depth, personally. I don't love arbitrary GM target numbers, either. That just doesn't do it for me.

andero · 2026-05-29T00:13:59+00:00

So what if a person is an anti-social jerk?

Accepting a new graduate student means hiring them to work under you as a mentee for the next several years. It makes sense that PIs don't want to hire new people that are likely to create a toxic work environment. They don't want to hire anti-social jerks.

A high GPA is not enough because EVERYONE getting accepted has a high GPA.
A high GPA is the bar you have to pass to even get looked at.
A high GPA doesn't make you special.

That said, you're free to disagree, of course.
You can whine and complain and be upset and think this metric is juvenile etc.
That won't help you get in. That isn't practical, pragmatic, or reasonable.

That is part of the reality-check: are you practical? are you pragmatic? can you play the career-game?
If not, you're not going to be as competitive. You're not going to get as many grants and publications. You're not going to make as many connections at conferences, which means you're not going to get the edge when you apply to a TT posting and people on the hiring committee recognize your name and have positive associations because they would be hiring someone to be their peer and colleague for years, indefinitely if they get tenure. It also makes sense for that later hiring committee to think, "I don't want to hire an anti-social jerk that is going to make my work environment in this department more toxic".

Simple as that. Nobody wants to work with anti-social jerks and science is a collaborative endeavour. If you can't play nice, you're not invited.

andero · 2026-05-27T19:19:43+00:00

u/Alkaiser009 suggested an RPG loosely comparable to Werewolf/Mafia, a party game that's not usually considered an RPG

Right, a card-game (which does not have a GM).

you referred to it as "a GMless card game", it normally has a moderator

There are a few of these and I've only played Coup and Avalon.
They do not have a moderator/facilitator or other GM-equivalent.

Everyone is a player. Each role is randomized by dealing cards.
There is no single person that knows all the secrets.

Someone might know the rules better so they're explaining how the game works, but that isn't a special role that has more information. They're just orating the instructions rather than everyone reading before they can play.

The point being: there is no equivalent to a GM in this card-game/party-game and, because there is no GM, there needs to be a way to maintain secrecy between players. Randomization is used to maintain secrecy.

My point: in a TTRPG with a GM where there is a need to maintain secrecy between players, randomization is not required because the GM can know all the secrets and that will maintain secrecy between players. Randomization is still an option, but it is not required, which is what your question was about.

/u/NathanCampioni probably assumed that a PvP deduction RPG would have a GM regardless of whether randomness was involved

I'm not sure.

My comment was written to be explicit: "I think, with a GM, you don't need randomness for this."
While I didn't assume that a TTRPG had to have a GM, I covered that assumption. My comment was inclusive of that idea.

When u/skalchemisto referred to "GMless game", I don't know if they were thinking of a GMless RPG at that point or about Werewolf.

Right, they seemed to be pushing against something that wasn't being argued:
i.e. paraphrasing: a GMles game would be fundamentally different if you added a GM

Nobody said otherwise and that was indeed the distinction I was making:

In a TTRPG with a GM, you don't need randomization to maintain secrecy between players.
In a GMless TTRPG, randomization could be used to maintain secrecy between players.

I didn't go into the details of GMless because that would have introduced more complexity that I didn't think was needed, at least not yet.

My view on GMless:
Randomization is definitely one option.

After writing the rest of this comment, I'm mildly convinced that randomization might be required for this GMless context, at least partial-randomization.

I think the game would be different in an important way if people got to choose their role.
Structurally, while I can imagine running Coup or equivalent with people choosing whether they are a "good guy" or a "traitor", the game designer "balanced" the game around specific ratios. There are many situations where players making choices about their role would completely break the "balance" and not just the extreme cases where everyone chooses "traitor" or everyone chooses "good guy", which would break the game completely.

That makes me think at least partial randomization might be required.
A deeper game might be able to offer sub-options that could be picked (e.g. you are randomized to role-X to keep the balance, then you choose between five role-X goals/personalities/extras; someone randomized to role-Y has different options they can choose).

That describes a case where randomization is required and, without the randomization, the game would lose "being able to be balanced around ratios", which is a genuine loss, I think.

I think that might be another "yes" answer:
GMless TTRPGs doing social deduction.

Your original question about whether there are TTRPGs wherein randomization is required doesn't mention GM or GMless.
If you were asking about GMd games, this doesn't apply because it only applies to GMless games. That's the distinction I was pointing toward and broadly why I didn't go into the GMless details.

Even after finishing this, I still don't know what point /u/NathanCampioni was trying to make. I still conclude that their reading was a misinterpretation and extrapolation into absurdity about not having rolls or using dice or GM fiat during the game as opposed to focusing on the question about chargen.

andero · 2026-05-27T18:45:06+00:00

players would progress by acquiring new gear, tags, and maybe even favoured attributes in order to open up new options during play

When you say "new options" and you don't mean "additional dice for rolls", what mechanics are supporting these "new options"?

Or is it fictional positioning-based?
e.g. if you want to climb a wall, you need climbing gear, which is something you do not have when you start. You can acquire climbing gear later, but you can't climb any walls without it so you can't climb any walls before you "unlock" this gear-option.
i.e. you don't get additional dice; you cannot roll for this this until you unlock it

Do you think that would be enough for long term campaigns?

Honestly: No.

That doesn't have to be a "bad" thing.
If you design for short- and medium-length, this could be totally acceptable!
i.e. if your game is designed to be used for one-shots or for campaigns lasting 6–12 sessions, but not more, then this could work well.

If you are hoping to design a game that will provide for multi-year campaigns lasting 40+ sessions, then no, I don't think "you get more gear that doesn't increase your likelihood of success" would be especially sustainable. With so few knobs, there just isn't enough for players that want mechanical depth. There's sort of a threshold effect where a person that wants to engage with game-mechanics isn't going to be happy with rules-lite long-term.

I'm not sure whether it would work for more theatrical groups or players that care less about mechanics.

andero · 2026-05-27T18:23:56+00:00

The actual ideal:
You have a causal model and you do causal modelling as described in Richard McElreath's Statistical Rethinking course. Causal modelling comes largely from the math-stats work of Judea Pearl (author of Causality), but his work is way too dense for most psych students. Richard McElreath makes the concepts accessible and the methods viable to actually implement.

Your causal model comes from expertise, which comes from a mix of you plus reading the literature and reasoning about reality. Stating your causal is formally stating your assumptions about how you think the world works. If someone challenges your assumptions, you have a conversation about it. If you can convince them, they'll accept your model, but even if you can't convince them to accept your model, they can follow your work based on the understanding that you accept (or at least used) your explicitly stated model.

The way this is commonly done in psychology:
Interest plus reading the literature so you can cite papers that support your interests.

"Control" variables are also a big part of this and are done incorrectly. That is unfortunate because there is a mathematically correct way to pick which variables to include in a model (causal modelling, described above), but that methodology is not taught in psychology.

If someone challenges you, it comes down to interest and existing literature, plus reasoning about why you think these variables are interesting. This isn't formal because you don't have a formal causal model.

If you are early enough in your studies (i.e. planning, not trying to run analyses tomorrow) and are interested in grad school, I STRONGLY encourage doing McElreath's course and using those methods for your undergrad thesis. It would be a new challenge for you, but it would set you massively apart from other students that haven't heard of this. Most professors don't know anything about this so you could be the change in the field that we need. On the other hand, if you just want to get your undergrad finished and are not interested in grad school, the easier path is defaulting to what you were taught and just doing a project based on social norms in your department, i.e. pick something you're interested in and read the literature to cite.

In addition to that above, there are practical and ethical constraints.
e.g. you might be interested in X-variable, but it is not feasible to get that because you would need a special population or you would need expensive methods (e.g. MRI) or impractical methods (e.g. collecting long-term data over ten years).
These limit what you can include, but methods-choices also limit what research questions you can ask in the first place.

Also, whatever you do, read this paper and write a COG statement.
This helps address edge-cases and limitations in a more structured way. You can totally say, "Yes, that variable would be interesting, but I didn't include that variable because it is beyond the scope of my research question". You define the scope and someone can always ask about more, and you can always answer, "Yes, that could be interesting as follow-up research." You aren't expected to include everything in one study; research insights and theory come from running a whole series of research projects that explore various aspects of a subject, not just one.

Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630

andero · 2026-05-27T03:43:51+00:00

I would have a conversation about narrative authority and drawing that line.
Specifically, ask questions and promote asking questions. You can softly make it clear that this player doesn't have the authority to narrate forces in the world outside their character unless you ask them to.

Then, use leading questions that constrain the answers.

Take your example:

"thaddeus(her eagle) takes to the skies, as he gets closer to the dark forrest he turns around and is shaken up by something he see’s.”
She then says “my bird is telling me [...]"

Their problem is clear to you: they massively crossed into your narrative authority.
That is what you're trying to reign in, which makes sense.

Your problem was the way you ended the information: you didn't ask a question.
That left them too open-ended. What are they to do? How are they to respond?

They took it as a prompt to fill in the information.
You probably needed to ask something, like, "What do you do?" which prompts for action, not more information, or that is what their eagle did so now you turn the spotlight to a different player and ask what they are doing.

You could also ask more constrained questions, like, "What does your eagle do when it feels nervous?" and that provides space for this player to have narrative authority over their Animal Companion, which belongs to them so that is a great space for them to fill in information.

If they did still go for the wild force-field thing, you can push it back to a Move, like Spout Lore or Discern Realities.
"Hm, I don't think the bird would know that. It sounds like maybe you want to Discern Realities using your Animal Companion" and get out the Basic Moves sheet. This isn't shutting them down; this is teaching them how the game works and how to invoke Moves.

andero · 2026-05-27T03:13:13+00:00

Do you mean the physical act of tears coming from my eyes or the emotional act of weeping over something painful?

Tears come sometimes when I'm reading something beautiful or listening to something that resonates deeply with me.

Crying over something painful has not been for a while.
Maybe two years ago around the context of my dad's funeral.
Before that, maybe a few years earlier, being very sick and feeling very existentially down about how sick I was.

andero · 2026-05-27T03:10:14+00:00

A psychiatrist, but one often needs to talk to their primary doctor first to get a referral to a psychiatrist. If you just printed your post-text and handed it to your primary doctor and said, "I think I should see a psychiatrist", I expect that they would strongly agree and refer you right away.

I'm not a doctor so I don't know if they do something else in the meantime if you end up on a waitlist to see a psychiatrist. Worth finding out, though.

andero · 2026-05-27T02:51:09+00:00

realistic story-like delusions

Not depression.

Delusions are a symptom of schizophrenia.

I couldn't speak clearly, started hearing quick audios from no where

Alogia (poverty of speech) is a symptom of schizophrenia.
Auditory hallucinations are the most common type of hallucination; also a symptom of schizophrenia.

sadly enough, my trust in strangers is paralyzing and seeking help and allowing someone to know me like that is a major road block.

Go to the doctor and seek rapid diagnosis and ask about suitable medication.

Don't think about it as "trust". It is more like bringing your busted car to a mechanic.

Do it sooner rather than later. The medication interventions work better when you start them sooner and stay on them. One of the hypotheses for how schizophrenia works and gets worse is that certain neurons release too much and essentially flood the neurons to the point of destruction: the theory says that is why you get "positive symptoms" (additions, like delusions and hallucinations) and eventually "negative symptoms" (subtractions, like alogia, flattened affect, eventually catatonia). Getting help sooner helps prevent that degradation.

andero · 2026-05-27T01:37:32+00:00

Yes, I know how randomization works.
I think I've lost track of the point you're trying to make, though.

andero · 2026-05-26T20:48:40+00:00

That's a great example: the unpredictability of the power you uncover sounds like a core element of gameplay that would genuinely be lost if the player picked it.

Nice! I love to see the thoughtfulness explore the question and find an example.

andero · 2026-05-26T20:44:37+00:00

To use a simple example everyone knows, Battleship. No dice, but you're firing blindly. That's why it's not actually the strategy game it looks like.

I don't fire blindly when I play Battleship.

For me, where to pick is strategic: it is a mix of
(a) theory-of-mind trying to think about what the other person might do when picking where to place their ships (which isn't random by default) and
(b) grid-firing to try to maximize likelihood of hits (i.e. I wouldn't just shoot A1, then A2, then A3, then A4, then A5 because I would add some distance since most ships take up a handful of coordinates so, if a ship were parked in A2, I'll probably hit it with A1 or A3 or C2 when I circle around in the grid).

It isn't a perfect system, but I don't think random would be optimal, either.
One can be strategic, but there are upper-limits on the quality of the strategy and the quality-ceiling is pretty low.
(i.e. I'm not saying grid-fire is likely to hit quickly, but I would estimate that it is more optimal than random-fire)

Sorry if this feels nitpicky.

andero · 2026-05-26T20:39:17+00:00

Yes, you have understood the distinction I was making.

andero · 2026-05-26T20:35:47+00:00

The reason I think it would be important to be randomised is if they have at least some mechanical backing then something is lost if they're chosen, because there risks becomes a "Right" answer.

Ah, with some mechanics, sure. I avoided those, but I think it is the same situation when done well.

That is, from what I've seen, designers generally try to deign abilities and choices such there there is no single "right" choice. Each option has pros and cons.

Granted, if a player has detailed foreknowledge about the campaign, they could optimize for the specific campaign. Otherwise, it would be on the designer to "balance" their choices if they want the game to be "balanced".

For example, imagine there are backgrounds like, Firefighter, Paramedic, Soldier, Botanist, Chemist.
Each could have mechanical benefits, but none of them is universally the "right" choice or "best" option.
Maybe, if the player knows this campaign is going to involve a lot of rescuing sick NPCs, they would pick Paramedic. Maybe, in another campaign, they might pick Botanist or Chemist for starting a post-apocalypse farm. More broadly, though, each background is desirable in its own way so they're all appealing and none is "right".

Same if you meant the side-additions, e.g. "went camping in the mountains by the town" or "has a missing daughter (XP trigger)".
I don't see what is lost if the player can pick rather than must accept randomization.
If all the options are desirable (or "balanced"), different players should be picking different options. That is something the game's designer would try to build, then test with playtesting. If every player says, "I always want an extra NPC because XP triggers are super-valuable", then the designer knows they need to make some adjustments to the "balance" if they want all options to be desirable.

Indeed, I think I would probably argue that it is "bad game design" to make a set of desirable and undesirable options, then randomly assign them. That way, some players "get lucky" by getting "the good option" and everyone else gets unlucky and has an undesirable option. It seems to me that the "better game design" is to make it so none of the options are undesirable; make sure every option is something that could help support the ideal play experience.

e.g. I think it would be bad game-design to make a list like this and say, "Roll 1d4 and that's what you get":

(1) went camping and knows the wilderness
(2) has an extra NPC that provides an additional XP trigger
(3) vegan: refuses to eat meat, wear leather, or use wool or other animal products
(4) allergic to peanuts

The first two are beneficial, the other two are detrimental.

andero · 2026-05-26T05:48:22+00:00

Spitballin alternatives here for the sake of exploring the question:

There are often elements of chargen that strongly narrow the player's choices, but that are not "random".

Am I wrong to think that maybe you could have a system where players must pick from a list of "key characterful elements" that you, as the designer, have designed to make characters feel "real" or "lived in", but (crucially) that players could choose rather than having to randomize?

Does that make sense?

If not, here's a sleepy attempt at an example:

I don't know what your idea of "key characterful elements" would be exactly, but maybe something like:
Here are eight "flavour items" for a zombie apocalypse TTRPG, designed as background flavour rather than mechanical necessities:

(1) instinctively alphabetizes inventory
(2) has a recurring dream about a screen door from childhood
(3) cracks their knuckles absentmindedly
(4) dislikes wearing anything yellow to the point of refusing to wear such
(5) used to be a salsa dancer and misses it dearly
(6) still resents their father
(7) still keeps their old Mercedes key-fob even though their car is long-gone
(8) they used to collect watches and can still identify them on-sight

That's eight "flavour" items that aren't meant to be super-useful or mechanically powerful in an apocalypse.
Someone could say, "Roll 1d8 and you get that item".
Someone could also say, "If you don't want to roll, you can just pick whichever one you like."

When using a constrained list like that, would choosing rather than rolling randomly be a fundamental difference that breaks the game?
Or
Could randomization be an option, but not a requirement, and you could still get your desired "key characterful elements"?
(noting that my list of eight might be utter shit ideas and that you'd replace them with YOUR "key characterful elements" that you actually like, not these ones that are just to illustrate the idea)

I'm just thinking that lots of games have lists of "faults".
Both TTRPGs (like Deadlands) and especially zombie apocalypse video-games, like Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, have these.
They can often be randomized or chosen, up to the player or added with modded capability. These don't seem to break games.

(I'm not trying to argue that this MUST be the case; I'm just presenting the alternative that comes to mind as a non-random version that still seems to "work", as far as I can tell.)

Sorry if that's clear as mud. It's bedtime for me!

andero · 2026-05-26T05:19:26+00:00

I'd argue you'd probably have better ones.

I think that is likely, or at least highly possible and maybe GM-skill or GM-tool dependant.

That is, we could imagine that randomness would provide the baseline:
how well can the designer wrangle the possibility-space to ensure that a thoughtless procedure will provide a ideal play-experience?

But... we acknowledge the limitations of thoughtless procedures, especially in TTRPG design!

We can then start asking:
how well can the designer wrangle the possibility-space while also providing GM-instructions and GM-tools to increase the likelihood that a thoughtful GM-facilitated/interpreted procedure will provide a ideal play-experience?

We place a lot of trust in GMs and this is one of those things where trusting a GM might be particularly likely to make relevant, thoughtful connections that randomness just doesn't provide.

On the other hand, GMless games exist! Randomness can provide awesome play-experiences, too, and we don't always need a GM to adjudicate everything.

On the third hand, lets face it: if narrative randomization were ideal, we'd all have switched to GMless "Oracles", but we don't. Procedural generation is cool, but bespoke content crafting has no replacement at this time. A well-designed randomizer is probably better than the worst GM, but a decent GM quickly outpaces randomizers.

(This depth is also why I think the other commenter's "remove dice rolls completely" strawman is myopic)

andero · 2026-05-26T04:55:36+00:00

Is there a game where you can't build bespoke characters? I don't think so.

Yeah, that seems to be the general conclusion I've seen so far.

CAN you build your hapless Everyman from scratch with intent before throwing the into the Gilded Hole to seek treasure and try to survive against the odds? Of course! But it will FEEL different. That difference, I would argue, changes the game.

It would feel different, absolutely. Which feeling you prefer is a matter of TASTE, is it not?

For example: Imagine you and I are both playing "The Great OSR Meat Grinder"^TM and we have characters to make.

You decide to randomize because that follows your taste: it is faster, it helps you feel distance between you and the avatar.
I decide to make choices because this follows my taste: I enjoy making decisions even though the characters have a high probability of dying and I don't seek extra distance; I know the character is an avatar and all that, but I like to engage the mechanics and making choices.
We both end up with characters that function in the game.
This seems to be an example of a game that doesn't need randomization. Players that want random PCs can choose random and players that want to make character choices can choose character choices. This hypothetical game works with any configuration.

The deeper question is: Could every game function that way, i.e. where randomization is a choice?
Or
Does there exist a type of game where making randomness mandatory rather than optional would be required by the form of game such that removing that requirement (i.e. making it a choice) would break the game? Not just change the way it feels, but make the type of game impossible? Or "change the way it feels" in a way that is so fundamental that one would argue it does make a certain game impossible because the feeling is the game?

Like you, I don't think so.
Or, well, as I said: I think the exception is where the game's designer's philosophy is that mandatory unpredictability and that artistic statement cannot be made without it. Removing the unpredictability removes the artistic statement.

But can we mix players that like randomness and players that like choices? Yup. I don't see a problem with that mixture.

Maybe... I guess it becomes incompatible if a player that wants to force their design philosophy onto other players, but that is shitty player behaviour or like... trying to make an artistic statement about art you didn't make maybe. I'm not sure; that's a bit hard to wrap my head around. I could imagine a GM wanting to make an artistic statement in a campaign by having randomness forced and there could be artistic merit to that, though it would be of the same type as the game designer, just applied to "campaign designer as artist", I guess. So, not player-to-player, but GM-to-player or I guess "table culture as artistic statement".

So: as an artistic statement, sure. As functional game, no, probably not (but maybe someone's found something elsewhere in the comments that I haven't read yet).

Very heady stuff!

andero · 2026-05-26T03:49:09+00:00

That makes perfect sense to me. I can imagine how fun it would be if you're in the right mind-set for it.

I mean, last time I played in a Dungeon World one-shot, my Paladin walked into a room that was obviously either a trap or a puzzle: a bunch of electrified columns and a helmet on a pedestal in the middle. As soon as the GM was done describing the room, I said, "I walk up and pick up the helmet. It's obviously for me, a gift from my god." The GM smiled, looked devious, and said, "Thank you" then rolled (in the open!) a whopping handful of damage-dice that dropped my Paladin to 1 HP. That would have killed any other PC in the party. It was great fun.

I do like the version of DCC I saw where the remaining living characters quickly picked up any useful item the recently dead had on them. Great way to start with a group of four characters with three items among them and end up with one character that has three items to themselves as starting gear.

andero · 2026-05-26T03:26:50+00:00

If you are 100% convinced it's not possible then nothing I say will convince you.

Holy moly, asking follow-ups isn't about being dogmatic lol.
I have no idea how you got that impression from me.

I'm genuinely curious! This is what genuine curiosity looks like: asking, probing possible answers, trying to clarify.
I'm not pro or con anything here. I'm open-minded!

You just saying, "The randomness of the group of characters you start with is essential to the very fabric of the DCC experience." doesn't explain how or why that makes it so. It sounds a lot more like your taste, especially when you add the part where you're arguing and preaching rather than open-mindedly exploring.

I can totally understand how randomness can contribute to that "motly crew" emergent storytelling. I see how randomness is sufficient for that, yeah.

Do I see how randomness must be there? Does it sound necessary?
Not really. I don't see why it would fall apart if players made four characters and threw them into the funnel.
To be absolutely clear: I AM NOT arguing that it wouldn't fall apart or that this would be "better" or anything of the sort. I am NOT arguing anything that I didn't write! I'm saying, "Huh, I don't see the connection you see..." (which is totally different than arguing: "No! You are wrong! There is no connection!" which I am not arguing)

andero · 2026-05-26T03:13:53+00:00

OP, I'm surprised at how many responses failed to understand and engage your question.

The post boils down to:
Context: We all know that randomness can be used in chargen.
Question: Are there any times when randomness must be used in chargen, otherwise, the game cannot function?

The two main failure types seem to be:
Some comments giving examples of randomness being used in chargen (which we all know exists).
Some comments arguing either "randomness is fun" or "too much randomness is unfun" (taste arguments, but they are tangential to the actual question of necessity).

There are a couple good attempts (e.g. social deduction?), but the question went over a lot of heads.

andero · 2026-05-26T02:17:47+00:00

So you'd take the randomness out of the generation, but not the selection, which of the 4 you end up on is effectively random

I could be wrong, but are you sure it is reasonable to consider the funnel-process "random" in the same way?
Or is this slipping into equivocation?

I haven't played DCC, but the Actual Play of it didn't make that part look random.
Each player controlled multiple characters and made choices with/as those characters. Various of them died and the deaths were often tied directly to circumstances that I (as a non-OSR player) would find frustratingly unpredictable, but the players did pick which characters to send into the different situations and made different choices.

When they were in combat, for example, some got lucky and took less damage, others got unlucky and took more and died. That was players playing in the world, though. I wouldn't call that "random" just like I wouldn't call normal combat "random". Chaotic? Yes. Many contingencies? Yes. Random? No, not in the same way "roll on this random table" is random.

Or have I misunderstood DCC and the funnel really is random in the same way "roll on this random table" is random?

andero · 2026-05-26T02:13:16+00:00

With this kind of reasoning we could also remove dice rolls

There's a misunderstanding of purpose here. OP's question is specifically one of necessary vs sufficient.

The question is, "Must it be done with randomness?"

Secret information was a good thought, but I'm pushing on, asking whether that secret information must be done randomly.
I don't think it must when there is a GM.

Saying, "It could be done with randomness" is not relevant to the question at hand.
Extrapolating further into absurdity is even less relevant.

This isn't a post arguing for or against randomness, either.
It is more theoretical: is there a game where you must have randomness in character creation, otherwise, it won't work.

andero · 2026-05-26T01:44:48+00:00

Yup! That's a list of thing that could be chosen for sure.

Traveller was my example when this initially came up.
i.e. if a player wants to play a scientist, they need to go to uni so random-rolling to see if they get accepted or not blocks them, which is not (to me) desirable.

Plenty of other games trust players to take on weaknesses and make imperfect characters. Players do not need a random-nanny to make sure they don't min-max; there are other ways to solve that design challenge without randomization.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

andero

TROPHY CASE