The input randomness I sometimes appreciate in TTRPGs is when I can roll up a character. Especially for the lighter TTRPGs in which you can quickly roll up a character and it's okay if they get killed I can roll another. That input randomness can lead to creativity both in how to make sense of the story of the character (why do they have these combination of attributes) and how to play them (how to leverage their attributes). A life path generator is sometimes an even better implementation of this.
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.
The research paper you linked was also very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
This would be an interesting experiment to see on a larger scale with a western population. Wonder if things like culture, gaming experience, ages etc. effect the conclusions and would the same conclusion happen with a different context like a cooperative boardgame vs a competitive TCG. Cool to think about!
I also wonder how the expectations of what a TCG is impacted their results. Pulling random or "mystery" cards from a deck breaks the conventions of constructing/building a custom deck for a TCG. The dissatisfaction they report might be related to that.
The input randomness I sometimes appreciate in TTRPGs is when I can roll up a character. Especially for the lighter TTRPGs in which you can quickly roll up a character and it's okay if they get killed I can roll another. That input randomness can lead to creativity both in how to make sense of the story of the character (why do they have these combination of attributes) and how to play them (how to leverage their attributes). A life path generator is sometimes an even better implementation of this.
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.
The research paper you linked was also very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
This would be an interesting experiment to see on a larger scale with a western population. Wonder if things like culture, gaming experience, ages etc. effect the conclusions and would the same conclusion happen with a different context like a cooperative boardgame vs a competitive TCG. Cool to think about!
I also wonder how the expectations of what a TCG is impacted their results. Pulling random or "mystery" cards from a deck breaks the conventions of constructing/building a custom deck for a TCG. The dissatisfaction they report might be related to that.
My suspicion is that they just proved folks don't like deck building a game they don't know.
Amen to that.