In a significant development for game design discourse, prominent designer Keith Burgun has put forth a comprehensive proposal advocating for the abandonment of the ubiquitous term "randomness" in favor of a more nuanced and specific vocabulary. Burgun argues that "randomness" has become an overburdened descriptor, hindering clear communication and often carrying unintended critical connotations when discussing the diverse forms of variance present in video games. This initiative aims to foster a more precise understanding of game mechanics, benefiting developers, critics, and players alike.
The call for a linguistic overhaul stems from the inherent ambiguity of "randomness." In the realm of interactive entertainment, what is often broadly labeled as "random" can encompass a vast spectrum of unpredictable elements, from statistical probabilities to emergent behaviors, each with distinct design intentions and player experiences. Burgun’s proposal seeks to disentangle these concepts, offering a specialized lexicon that allows for a more accurate and less emotionally charged analysis of game systems.
The Evolution of Variance in Game Design
The concept of "randomness" has been a foundational element in games for centuries, from dice rolls in ancient board games to card shuffles. In early video games, simple random number generators (RNG) were frequently employed to introduce replayability, challenge, and surprise. Dungeon crawlers like Rogue (1980) pioneered procedural generation, relying heavily on random elements to create unique levels with each playthrough. Similarly, early RPGs used random damage rolls or encounter rates to simulate unpredictable combat scenarios.
However, as game design matured and titles became increasingly complex, the blanket term "randomness" began to prove inadequate. Modern games integrate sophisticated systems that deliberately introduce elements of unpredictability to achieve specific aesthetic, strategic, or emotional goals. Whether it’s the emergent physics of a sandbox game, the psychological manipulation of a gacha system, or the finely tuned probabilities of a competitive card game, these are all forms of variance that the single word "randomness" fails to articulate with precision. The negative perception often associated with "randomness" — implying a lack of skill or unfairness — further complicates constructive discussion, especially when a game designer might intentionally incorporate such elements for strategic depth or narrative impact.
A New Framework: Deconstructing Unpredictability
Burgun’s proposal introduces a set of distinct terms, each designed to capture a particular facet of variance. At the core of this new lexicon is "Unpredictable," serving as the overarching, neutral replacement for the generalized "randomness."
Unpredictable: The Foundational Term
"Unpredictable" is positioned as the blanket term for any game mechanism where the player cannot deterministically foresee the outcome. This encompasses a wide array of phenomena, moving beyond mere statistical chance. Examples include the drawing of cards from a shuffled deck in a trading card game like Magic: The Gathering or Burgun’s favored Hearthstone: Battlegrounds, where the exact sequence of units offered is unknown. It also covers damage ranges in combat systems (e.g., dealing 5-10 damage), where the precise numerical result within that range is not known beforehand.
Beyond these common examples, the term "unpredictable" can extend to player execution, particularly in skill-based genres. A fighting game player attempting a complex combo, for instance, cannot deterministically predict if their input will be flawless in every instance; human error introduces an element of unpredictability. Similarly, simultaneous actions in real-time strategy games, where opponents’ moves unfold concurrently, can introduce unpredictable outcomes based on the intersection of multiple independent decisions. This broad definition liberates the concept from purely probabilistic interpretations, acknowledging the multifaceted sources of non-determinism in gameplay. Its neutrality ensures that discussing an "unpredictable" element doesn’t automatically imply a design flaw, but rather a descriptive characteristic.
Chaotic: The Experiential Descriptor
Moving from mechanism to experience, "Chaotic" describes the feeling a player encounters when numerous unpredictable effects occur with sufficient frequency and impact, making it challenging to establish a stable understanding of the game state. This term highlights the subjective perception of disorder and turbulence. Burgun emphasizes that "chaotic" is not inherently negative; rather, it can be a deliberate design choice to evoke specific feelings.
Consider the frenetic battles in certain action RPGs, where screen-filling effects and numerous enemy projectiles create a sense of overwhelming, yet exhilarating, pandemonium. Or the dynamic, ever-shifting battlefields of a multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) game, where simultaneous abilities and player movements can rapidly transform the tactical landscape. In such instances, chaos contributes directly to the game’s thematic immersion, particularly when aiming to simulate the intensity of a conflict or battle. Games themed as battles that lack this element often devolve into feeling more like puzzles, losing the visceral aesthetic of unpredictable engagement. The intentional use of "chaoticness" can thus be a powerful tool for designers to shape player emotion and reinforce narrative themes.
Volatile: Quantifying Impact
"Volatile" focuses specifically on the magnitude of impact that unpredictable mechanisms can have. It is less concerned with the frequency or probability of an event and more with its potential consequences. A mechanism is considered volatile if its unpredictable outcomes can drastically alter the game state, player advantage, or overall trajectory of a match.
The example provided, contrasting "you deal 6-10 damage" with "you deal 0-100 damage," perfectly illustrates this distinction. While both involve unpredictable damage, the latter introduces a far greater range of outcomes, making it significantly more volatile. In games like XCOM, a missed shot with a high hit chance but low damage variance is less volatile than a critical hit mechanic that, on rare occasions, can instantly eliminate a high-value enemy or player unit, regardless of health. Competitive games often grapple with the appropriate level of volatility; too much can lead to frustrating swings of fortune, while too little might reduce strategic depth and dramatic tension. Designers must carefully balance volatility to ensure engaging gameplay without undermining player agency or skill.
Erratic: Unpredictable Predictability
"Erratic" describes systems where the degree of unpredictability itself shifts in an unpredictable manner. This implies a non-uniform pattern of variance, where a game might transition from a highly deterministic and controlled state to one of extreme unpredictability without a clear, predictable trigger. This is a more abstract concept, challenging to implement and perhaps less common than other forms of variance, but powerful in its potential to subvert player expectations.
An example could be a game that mostly adheres to predictable rules and mechanics, then suddenly introduces a "crazy mini-game" or a rare, high-impact event that completely upends the established gameplay loop or ruleset, akin to "flipping the whole table." Imagine a strategy game where, after numerous turns of calculated moves, a random catastrophic event (e.g., a "cosmic anomaly") might suddenly destroy a large portion of the map or bestow an overwhelming, temporary buff on one player, fundamentally altering the strategic landscape in a way that wasn’t foreshadowed by standard gameplay patterns. Such erratic elements, while potentially disorienting, can inject a powerful sense of surprise and force players to adapt to genuinely unforeseen circumstances, preventing meta-game stagnation.
Luck-Based / Unfair: The Emotional & Social Dimensions
These terms delve into the player’s subjective experience and emotional response to high-variance unpredictable events. "Luck-Based" is typically used in single-player contexts, describing situations where the player’s success or failure is perceived to be heavily influenced by chance rather than skill or strategy. This perception can arise when game outcomes feel disproportionate to player input or decision-making.
In multiplayer environments, the term often shifts to "Unfair." When multiple players are involved, the introduction of high-variance unpredictable events can lead to perceptions of inequity, where one player might benefit disproportionately from a lucky draw or an unpredictable system outcome, while another is penalized. Discussions around "fairness" are particularly prevalent in competitive esports titles, where the integrity of competition demands that skill be the primary determinant of success. Too much perceived unfairness can undermine the competitive spirit and player investment. These terms highlight the crucial distinction between a mechanism being unpredictable and a player’s experience of that mechanism being frustrating or unjust.
"Slot Machine": The Skill Ceiling and Monetization Link
The term "Slot Machine" describes a game or system where the skill ceiling is either identical to or very close to the skill floor. In essence, these are systems where player input or skill has minimal to no impact on the outcome, rendering them akin to pure chance operations, like a coin flip. While rarely the sole mechanic in full-fledged video games, this concept is highly relevant in the context of modern monetization strategies, particularly in mobile gaming.
The rise of "gacha" mechanics, loot boxes, and other predatory monetization models in free-to-play mobile games exemplifies the "slot machine" principle. Players invest real money for a chance at obtaining desirable in-game items or characters, with the outcome determined by pure probability rather than skill. The psychological hooks, variable reward schedules, and lack of agency associated with these systems draw direct parallels to gambling. This term is critical for analyzing the ethical dimensions of game design, especially concerning consumer protection and the blurring lines between gaming and gambling. It emphasizes that while some unpredictability can enhance gameplay, systems that entirely eliminate skill and agency can be exploitative.
Implications for the Gaming Industry
The adoption of a more precise lexicon, as proposed by Burgun, carries significant implications across the gaming ecosystem.
For Game Developers: Clearer terminology would enable more precise communication within development teams, facilitating the articulation of design intentions, identifying specific problems during playtesting, and iterating on mechanics more effectively. Instead of vaguely stating "this game has too much randomness," a designer could pinpoint whether a mechanic is "too volatile" or contributing to an undesired "chaotic" player experience, allowing for targeted adjustments. This could lead to more refined game systems and a deeper understanding of how different forms of variance contribute to player engagement and retention.
For Game Critics and Journalists: The new vocabulary would empower critics to move beyond generalized complaints or praises of "randomness." Reviews could offer more insightful analysis, differentiating between intentional chaos that serves an aesthetic purpose and unfair volatility that undermines strategic depth. This would elevate the standard of critical discourse, providing readers with a more nuanced understanding of a game’s design philosophy and execution.
For Players and the Community: A shared, precise language could foster more constructive discussions among players. Debates about game balance, skill vs. luck, or design choices could shift from emotive generalizations to analytical examinations of specific unpredictable, volatile, or chaotic elements. This could lead to a more informed player base and a healthier community dialogue.
Broader Impact and Challenges
Implementing such a linguistic shift would not be without its challenges. The ingrained nature of "randomness" in common parlance means that widespread adoption would require a concerted effort from influential voices within the industry, including designers, educators, and major publications. It would necessitate a cultural shift in how games are discussed and analyzed.
However, the potential benefits—a more sophisticated understanding of game mechanics, improved design practices, and richer critical analysis—make this proposal a valuable contribution to the ongoing professionalization of game design. As games continue to evolve in complexity and diversity, the tools we use to describe and understand them must evolve as well. Burgun’s initiative represents a thoughtful step towards a future where game design discourse is as intricate and precise as the interactive worlds it seeks to describe.
About the Author
