In my role as a DM, I traditionally shied away from extensive use of luck during my Dungeons & Dragons games. My preference was for the plot and what happened in a game to be guided by character actions instead of pure luck. That said, I opted to alter my method, and I'm truly pleased with the outcome.
A popular podcast features a DM who often asks for "chance rolls" from the adventurers. This involves picking a polyhedral and defining consequences based on the result. This is essentially no different from rolling on a random table, these get invented spontaneously when a character's decision doesn't have a obvious outcome.
I decided to try this technique at my own table, mostly because it appeared engaging and provided a break from my normal practice. The outcome were fantastic, prompting me to reflect on the often-debated dynamic between planning and randomization in a D&D campaign.
At a session, my party had concluded a massive conflict. When the dust settled, a cleric character inquired after two beloved NPCs—a sibling duo—had lived. In place of picking a fate, I asked for a roll. I told the player to make a twenty-sided die roll. The possible results were: on a 1-4, both were killed; on a 5-9, only one succumbed; a high roll, they made it.
The player rolled a 4. This resulted in a deeply poignant moment where the adventurers discovered the bodies of their allies, still holding hands in death. The cleric performed a ceremony, which was uniquely meaningful due to earlier roleplaying. In a concluding reward, I chose that the remains were suddenly restored, showing a enchanted item. I rolled for, the item's magical effect was precisely what the group required to solve another pressing story problem. One just script this type of magical coincidences.
This event made me wonder if improvisation and making it up are in fact the essence of D&D. Even if you are a detail-oriented DM, your improvisation muscles can rust. Players often excel at upending the most carefully laid plots. Therefore, a skilled DM has to be able to adapt swiftly and invent content in real-time.
Using luck rolls is a fantastic way to practice these talents without venturing too far outside your comfort zone. The trick is to use them for minor circumstances that have a limited impact on the campaign's main plot. As an example, I wouldn't use it to decide if the king's advisor is a traitor. However, I would consider using it to decide whether the party reach a location right after a critical event unfolds.
This technique also helps make players feel invested and create the impression that the game world is dynamic, progressing based on their actions in real-time. It reduces the sense that they are merely characters in a DM's sole script, thereby strengthening the cooperative nature of storytelling.
Randomization has long been part of the game's DNA. Early editions were reliant on random tables, which fit a playstyle focused on exploration. While contemporary D&D often emphasizes narrative and role-play, leading many DMs to feel they require detailed plans, this isn't always the best approach.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing your prep. But, equally valid no problem with relinquishing control and letting the dice to guide minor details instead of you. Control is a major part of a DM's job. We use it to manage the world, yet we can be reluctant to release it, in situations where doing so might improve the game.
My final suggestion is this: Don't be afraid of relinquishing a bit of control. Experiment with a little chance for smaller story elements. It may find that the organic story beat is infinitely more rewarding than anything you would have scripted on your own.