Why I Am Against Heavy RNG in Job Design

[BabyYoda]

I understand why some players want RNG in jobs.

Old Astrologian cards, Bard procs, and Dancer procs can make a job feel less scripted. They create moments where the player reacts to something unexpected instead of repeating the exact same flow every pull.

So I understand the appeal.

But personally, I am against RNG in job design in general, and these are the main reasons.

First, RNG reduces reliability.

A job should feel like a stable toolset. I should know what my resources are, what tools I have, and how to plan around them. When a job depends on random procs, random cards, or random resource generation, the job becomes less consistent.

Second, RNG weakens mastery.

Good job design should reward planning, timing, execution, positioning, and decision making. But if part of my output depends on whether the game gave me good or bad rolls, then performance is no longer fully tied to skill.

Third, RNG can affect logs too much.

Two players can play almost the same fight with very similar execution, but one gets better proc chains, better resource timing, or better RNG during burst windows. That can create a noticeable difference in logs without proving that one player made better decisions.

Fourth, RNG is often a cheap way to create variation.

Instead of designing deeper job mechanics or more dynamic encounters, the game can simply add random procs and make the job feel different. But different does not always mean deeper.

Fifth, RNG often makes players react to the hotbar instead of the fight.

If my main adaptation comes from waiting to see which button lights up, then I am not really reading the encounter. I am reacting to my own job rolling dice.

That is why I think unpredictability should come from encounters, not jobs.

Bosses should have mechanics that are less predictable, but still readable before they happen. Different mechanic orders, different target selections, different movement patterns, and different pressure points can create real adaptation.

That kind of unpredictability is good because the player is reacting to the fight itself.

The job should be reliable.

The encounter should create uncertainty.

So my position is simple:

I am against RNG in jobs because it reduces reliability, weakens mastery, affects logs, creates cheap variation, and shifts attention away from the encounter.

I want to react to the boss, not to my hotbar rolling dice.

[Carighan]

I don't disagree that within the context of static-rotation-type jobs (i.e.: all current ones, even Dancer and Red Mage have been neutered to where it's factually irrelevant how their procs play out) then lots of variations to which you have to react in a fight is very good. In particular - which isn't easy to design, granted - the randomization in the fight could result in having to pre-plan your otherwise static rotation in "sets" and swapping them around as needed to maximize damage output or healing or reduce damage taken or whatver. This of course kinda means the design of the class is factually dynamic-branching-type, with the branching being dictated by an external mechanism, but eh, same difference.

However, I feel we just have too many classes. It's okay if there are plenty static-rotation-type, as you also say, many players love those. OTOH the sameyness among classes is unavoidable having so many of them but always re-using the same archetype. It'd make sense to shift some classes to proc-based or resource-based. Which wouldn't impact the other half of classes that stay as a static design for players who dislike RNG. That is to say, we have more than enough classes to make everybody happy, here.

[RaionKansen]

Old....
First, RNG reduces reliability.

Second, RNG weakens mastery.

Third, RNG can affect logs too much.

Fourth, RNG is often a cheap way to create variation.

Fifth, RNG often makes players react to the hotbar instead of the fight.

That is why I think unpredictability should come from encounters, not jobs.

Bosses should have mechanics that are less predictable, but still readable before they happen. Different mechanic orders, different target selections, different movement patterns, and different pressure points can create real adaptation.

Okay.. Im convinced you're legitimately troll posting at this point.

You haven't been around for "old" anything.

First: Damage profiles from jobs heavily relies on Crit+DH %. So much so that they've given some jobs auto-crit so that they're only trying to roll for DH, or vice versa.
Jobs can have RNG as long as the potency per gcd differences arent that large.

Second: It emphasizes mastery instead of weakening it. You're able to react and adapt because you understand the job intimately.

Third: Again, logs are almost all about your Crit+DH% and kills times. Unless you're posting on a separate account, INTENTIONALLY, you don't have any logs in the first place lol

Fourth: There's no deep job/class system in any MMORPG that doesnt use some form of proc system. There's nothing deep about having a ton of branching options either since there will ultimately be ONE optimal rotation.

Fifth: This only happens if you don't have mastery of the job. Bosses already have mechanics that happen in different orders, or that target different players, or have entirely different layouts for the mechanic. We create uniform solutions to these issues. You need to just finish MSQ and try to do some content.

[BabyYoda]

I don't disagree that within the context of static-rotation-type jobs (i.e.: all current ones, even Dancer and Red Mage have been neutered to where it's factually irrelevant how their procs play out) then lots of variations to which you have to react in a fight is very good. In particular - which isn't easy to design, granted - the randomization in the fight could result in having to pre-plan your otherwise static rotation in "sets" and swapping them around as needed to maximize damage output or healing or reduce damage taken or whatver. This of course kinda means the design of the class is factually dynamic-branching-type, with the branching being dictated by an external mechanism, but eh, same difference.

However, I feel we just have too many classes. It's okay if there are plenty static-rotation-type, as you also say, many players love those. OTOH the sameyness among classes is unavoidable having so many of them but always re-using the same archetype. It'd make sense to shift some classes to proc-based or resource-based. Which wouldn't impact the other half of classes that stay as a static design for players who dislike RNG. That is to say, we have more than enough classes to make everybody happy, here.

I understand the idea of having different jobs for different players, and I agree that not every job should play the same.

My issue is not with jobs having different identities. My issue is with RNG being used as the source of that identity.

A job can be dynamic without being random: resource management, branching priorities, encounter-driven decisions, stance systems, and deterministic conditions can all create variety without relying on dice rolls.

The problem with RNG is that if it is impactful, it becomes hard to balance and luck affects performance too much. If it is balanced, it often has to be watered down until the proc barely matters.

So I do not think the choice is RNG jobs or static jobs.

I think the better direction is dynamic jobs with reliable rules, where variation comes from decisions and encounters rather than random outcomes.

[BabyYoda]

Okay.. Im convinced you're legitimately troll posting at this point.

You haven't been around for "old" anything.

First: Damage profiles from jobs heavily relies on Crit+DH %. So much so that they've given some jobs auto-crit so that they're only trying to roll for DH, or vice versa.
Jobs can have RNG as long as the potency per gcd differences arent that large.

Second: It emphasizes mastery instead of weakening it. You're able to react and adapt because you understand the job intimately.

Third: Again, logs are almost all about your Crit+DH% and kills times. Unless you're posting on a separate account, INTENTIONALLY, you don't have any logs in the first place lol

Fourth: There's no deep job/class system in any MMORPG that doesnt use some form of proc system. There's nothing deep about having a ton of branching options either since there will ultimately be ONE optimal rotation.

Fifth: This only happens if you don't have mastery of the job. Bosses already have mechanics that happen in different orders, or that target different players, or have entirely different layouts for the mechanic. We create uniform solutions to these issues. You need to just finish MSQ and try to do some content.

It's impressive how you managed to write that much while arguing against points I never actually made.

I never mentioned Crit/DH RNG. I never argued that jobs should be completely static. I never claimed encounters currently have zero variation.

You basically invented a different argument, responded to that argument, and then congratulated yourself for winning it.

The irony is that you're talking about mastery while demonstrating the exact opposite skill when it comes to reading comprehension.

My point was very simple: gameplay RNG is not the only way to create dynamic gameplay.

Yet instead of explaining why procs create better decision making than deterministic systems, you defaulted to "every MMO does it" and "finish MSQ."

Neither of those are arguments.

They're just ways of avoiding the actual discussion.

If your position is that pressing a glowing button whenever it appears is the pinnacle of job depth, then I think we've simply set the bar at very different heights.

[Carighan]

The problem with RNG is that if it is impactful, it becomes hard to balance and luck affects performance too much. If it is balanced, it often has to be watered down until the proc barely matters.

Both sides of this are solved problems, the devs just need to actually look at other MMOs. Even older ones.

Yes, if you handle procs like they do on e.g. Red Mage, their only response is to trivialize and neuter until they no longer matter. That's lame. And I agree, if you gotta do that, just don't. It's no longer even a proc at that point.

But even ... how long ago was it?... ouuuf, 2007. Okay so back in 2007 World of Warcraft had already solved the proc-randomness issue by introducing their PPM system. Since Windfury and whatever that Retri thing was didn't work well with 1H vs 2H (more of an issue for Windfury), they introduced a PPM system where instead of each hit having say a 20% chance to proc something, you got 5 procs per minute. Got a slow weapon, higher chance per hit than on a faster weapon. This introduced the first step of easing proc randomness: One upside of a faster weapon (for procs with fixed values) was a higher reliability due to the high number of hits quickly evening out the chances and the procs coming at pretty reliable intervals. Want to gamble that you get extra hits during buff windows? Go for something slow, rake in the huge double/triple procs, but hey, might also get unlucky.

This was then fudged again, which AFAIK is still what they do today: They got a PPM-system, but it also "helps you". As you fail to produce procs, the chance actually goes up slightly. You can't be without proc for toooooo long. Likewise if you proc repeatedly, your chance goes down more than it would have to for the PPM number to be correct, in particular for the first 1-2 hits, so that chained procs and deserts of no procs become both very rare while the overall PPM is the same and the randomness is still felt over medium stretches of time.

And then, that's just one way of doing it. It's a very smart one, there's a reason most copy that. FFXIV somehow... just doesn't even bother with procs or randomization, which cuts off ~2.5 of 4 archetypes of RPG-class-design.

[Valence]

I have personally yet to see any case where a job's reliability suffered from rng in XIV, even HW/SB AST. Especially when the whole point of having rng in the first place is to offer tools to the player to minimize a lack of results or triage and manage good ones. Main example of this was MCH ammo which was a way for the player to overcome that constraint especially for their bursts, or AST royal road to burn unwanted cards in order to boost the power of the next one. played, or the ability to save and store cards for later use.

It's precisely what makes or break a RNG job: a good player makes it a stable toolset, and a bad player keeps it unstable.
It's precisely through planning, execution on the fly and decision making with the hand you're given at any time that makes rng mastery.

This in fact offers infinitely more mastery potential and ceiling to jobs than any rote, deterministic rotation can, since it requires constant agency and thinking.

Logs have always been influenced a lot more by Crit and DH than anything even related to RNG. I've mained BRD for a long time in savage and ultimate, and I can tell you with 110% certainty that my logs have never really felt affected a lot by rng, especially since rng is concentrated around abilities that spread over a huge sample that evens out in the end. the real culprits of parse runs being all about playing the lottery with every pull are crit and DH on a handful of 2min nukes with gigantic potency, and also the base damage variance (± 5%). But i'll grant you that AST pulling the correct cards back in SB was also part of it, and i'd argue it was a problem of card balance rather than a problem inherent to rng itself.

Beyond this, I couldn't care less about logs. Leave those to parse brains and let them run deterministic rotations, it's not like they're endangered in the game anyway.

The idea that RNG and deep job mechanics/encounters are mutually exclusive is a little puzzling to me. Both are worthy endeavors to go after.
Now the current RNG on the rare jobs left in the game that even deal with it in the first place isn't exactly what I'd call, supremely engaging though. That ship unfortunately sailed when Stormblood ended.

If you're not paying attention to the encounter because you're too focused on your hotbar due to rng, that's something you can work on. It's perfectly understandable that there is a balance in difficulty to reach there, but RNG can actually compliment a deeper and engaging battle system at the encounter side if it actually interacts with it in a meaningful way.

If you do not like RNG jobs, don't fret because you're probably part of the 99% of this playerbase that seem to entertain a sheer hatred for it (and then will defend tooth and nail actually awful rng like atmas, go figure).
But please then, just go play the jobs that don't have any and leave us alone. We didn't do anything to harm you, and if anything seeing evolved, we already lost one of the iconic RNG jobs to the rework because SE seems to share that sentiment for some reason.

I'm actually scared for evolved DNC now.

[BabyYoda]

...

That's fair, and I agree that systems like PPM and bad-luck protection do a much better job of controlling randomness than simple proc chances.

My question, however, is whether that actually solves the core issue or simply reduces its side effects.

Most of the systems you described are designed to make RNG more reliable, more predictable, and less extreme. Which makes sense, because completely uncontrolled RNG tends to create balance and gameplay issues.

But that leads me back to the same question: if we are adding multiple layers of protection to make randomness behave in a more consistent and controlled way, why is randomness the preferable foundation in the first place?

What I find amusing is that RNG is often presented as the solution to players getting bored of repetition. Yet in many cases it feels more like a shortcut than a real solution.

Instead of creating variation through encounters, player decisions, resource management, branching priorities, or other gameplay systems, the answer becomes: "If you want your runs to feel different, play the RNG job."

To me, that's a surprisingly low bar for variation.

The game is still largely asking you to do the same things. The difference is that now a proc appeared at a slightly different time.

So while I agree that modern MMO design has found ways to smooth out RNG, I'm still not convinced that RNG is inherently a better source of depth than systems that derive variation directly from player decisions and encounter design.

[BabyYoda]

I have personally yet to see any case where a job's reliability suffered from rng in XIV, even HW/SB AST. Especially when the whole point of having rng in the first place is to offer tools to the player to minimize a lack of results or triage and manage good ones. Main example of this was MCH ammo which was a way for the player to overcome that constraint especially for their bursts, or AST royal road to burn unwanted cards in order to boost the power of the next one. played, or the ability to save and store cards for later use.

It's precisely what makes or break a RNG job: a good player makes it a stable toolset, and a bad player keeps it unstable.
It's precisely through planning, execution on the fly and decision making with the hand you're given at any time that makes rng mastery.
This in fact offers infinitely more mastery potential and ceiling to jobs than any rote, deterministic rotation can, since it requires constant agency and thinking.

Logs have always been influenced a lot more by Crit and DH than anything even related to RNG. I've mained BRD for a long time in savage and ultimate, and I can tell you with 110% certainty that my logs have never really felt affected a lot by rng, especially since rng is concentrated around abilities that spread over a huge sample that evens out in the end. the real culprits of parse runs being all about playing the lottery with every pull are crit and DH on a handful of 2min nukes with gigantic potency, and also the base damage variance (± 5%). But i'll grant you that AST pulling the correct cards back in SB was also part of it, and i'd argue it was a problem of card balance rather than a problem inherent to rng itself.

Beyond this, I couldn't care less about logs. Leave those to parse brains and let them run deterministic rotations, it's not like they're endangered in the game anyway.

The idea that RNG and deep job mechanics/encounters are mutually exclusive is a little puzzling to me. Both are worthy endeavors to go after.
Now the current RNG on the rare jobs left in the game that even deal with it in the first place isn't exactly what I'd call, supremely engaging though. That ship unfortunately sailed when Stormblood ended.

If you're not paying attention to the encounter because you're too focused on your hotbar due to rng, that's something you can work on. It's perfectly understandable that there is a balance in difficulty to reach there, but RNG can actually compliment a deeper and engaging battle system at the encounter side if it actually interacts with it in a meaningful way.

If you do not like RNG jobs, don't fret because you're probably part of the 99% of this playerbase that seem to entertain a sheer hatred for it (and then will defend tooth and nail actually awful rng like atmas, go figure).
But please then, just go play the jobs that don't have any and leave us alone. We didn't do anything to harm you, and if anything seeing evolved, we already lost one of the iconic RNG jobs to the rework because SE seems to share that sentiment for some reason.

I'm actually scared for evolved DNC now.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

[Nero-Voidstails]

I don't think RNG is bad in jobs I think it make things more interesting overall what I do hate is the RNG on RNG tho dancer have that alot on release being bad and well they somewhat balanced it but still think it's bad