RNG is a fascinating topic. Charles has some strong insights in his thread, but I come at things from the other side. Let me explain.
https://twitter.com/charlesrandall/status/1387751257482350595
Randomization serves two fundamental purposes:
1) It allows the dev to offer the player several pieces of content that the dev thinks are equally interesting.
2) It allows the dev to keep information hidden from the player.
1) It allows the dev to offer the player several pieces of content that the dev thinks are equally interesting.
2) It allows the dev to keep information hidden from the player.
Hidden information is a strong tool. For first-time players, nearly all information is hidden. What's that enemy? What's this weapon? Where's this go?
As you learn those things, you un-hide the information. And eventually you know how everything goes.
As you learn those things, you un-hide the information. And eventually you know how everything goes.
Randomization can be used as a way to postpone that.
Eventually even randomized elements can be figured out, percentages discovered, perfect play perfected.
Think about something like Blackjack to see that happen.
Eventually even randomized elements can be figured out, percentages discovered, perfect play perfected.
Think about something like Blackjack to see that happen.
Randomization is also a way to offer a player multiple pieces of equally valuable content.
This is a bit tougher, because equally valuable to the player's *experience* isn't necessarily equally valuable to the *player*.
This is a bit tougher, because equally valuable to the player's *experience* isn't necessarily equally valuable to the *player*.
A player makes a lockpick test. The door opens or not.
To the player, one of these is absolutely a better result.
But to the player's *experience*, failing the lockpick challenge can define who they are and how they move through the game.
They're... not the lockpick king.
To the player, one of these is absolutely a better result.
But to the player's *experience*, failing the lockpick challenge can define who they are and how they move through the game.
They're... not the lockpick king.
This can easily be undermined, though. Save-spamming changes the dynamic considerably, as does framing the failure as being less interesting.
We have a lot of leftover junk in our heads about what "should be random". And we usually stick to it rote, without thinking about it.
We have a lot of leftover junk in our heads about what "should be random". And we usually stick to it rote, without thinking about it.
When randomly choosing between events or outcomes, we need to be sure our events and outcomes are equally useful in building the player experience.
For example, building a dungeon randomly...
For example, building a dungeon randomly...
Is each random segment equally useful?
What about that empty room? Is that useful?
Well, that depends.
Does that empty room build suspense? Offer a place to rest? Make the final escape out of the dungeon that much more arduous?
What about that empty room? Is that useful?
Well, that depends.
Does that empty room build suspense? Offer a place to rest? Make the final escape out of the dungeon that much more arduous?
How about that deck of moves the player build? Are all those moves equally useful?
To the DEV, yes.
The bad moves are a goal. Something to fix, to remove.
To me, this sort of thinking is the beating heart of randomization.
To the DEV, yes.
The bad moves are a goal. Something to fix, to remove.
To me, this sort of thinking is the beating heart of randomization.
When you create a randomized result, think to yourself:
Does every outcome drive the player's experience? Does every outcome make the game more compelling?
If not, don't do it like that.
Does every outcome drive the player's experience? Does every outcome make the game more compelling?
If not, don't do it like that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
