Good point! I hadn't considered it, but initial character creation has elements of input randomness. You roll some dice and then react to what you are given.
Good point! I hadn't considered it, but initial character creation has elements of input randomness. You roll some dice and then react to what you are given.
To continue this line of thought, for games in which the GM rolls on tables would be a slightly more immediate example. GM rolls on an encounter table [input randomness] —> tells PCs they encounter a band of goblins —> PCs try to talk —> goblins attack —> PCs fight and make their rolls [output randomness].
Also a good point! I hadn't thought of that one because the action/agency is split between the players vs. GM. The GM does the input randomness and then the PCs do the output randomness... or something like that. I like this line of thinking!
I keep thinking that carefully ensuring both input and output are mixed into the game can make for a more engaging and satisfying player experience.
The balance of player satisfaction is so interesting and context specific.
As a player do I care if the goblins encounter happened because the GM always had it planned or because it was rolled on an encounter generator... I might but probably not. The input randomness might as well be destiny to me. However in some instances I'll understand that I was unlucky to encounter goblins because the GM reveals that it's a bad encounter roll and that unluckiness becomes part of the story of the game session.
On player generation. If I'm expected to be heavily invested in a character I'm not going to tolerate much input randomness. If I can be medium to lightly invested in a character I will be satisfied by more input randomness. That's me anyway.
Good point! I hadn't considered it, but initial character creation has elements of input randomness. You roll some dice and then react to what you are given.
To continue this line of thought, for games in which the GM rolls on tables would be a slightly more immediate example. GM rolls on an encounter table [input randomness] —> tells PCs they encounter a band of goblins —> PCs try to talk —> goblins attack —> PCs fight and make their rolls [output randomness].
Also a good point! I hadn't thought of that one because the action/agency is split between the players vs. GM. The GM does the input randomness and then the PCs do the output randomness... or something like that. I like this line of thinking!
I keep thinking that carefully ensuring both input and output are mixed into the game can make for a more engaging and satisfying player experience.
The balance of player satisfaction is so interesting and context specific.
As a player do I care if the goblins encounter happened because the GM always had it planned or because it was rolled on an encounter generator... I might but probably not. The input randomness might as well be destiny to me. However in some instances I'll understand that I was unlucky to encounter goblins because the GM reveals that it's a bad encounter roll and that unluckiness becomes part of the story of the game session.
On player generation. If I'm expected to be heavily invested in a character I'm not going to tolerate much input randomness. If I can be medium to lightly invested in a character I will be satisfied by more input randomness. That's me anyway.