How does Wayward Strategy discuss RNG in real-time strategy games?

Updated

Wayward Strategy argues that the usual "RNG vs. skill" framing is a dead end. In the article "RNG Discourse is a Disaster," contributor Johaggis writes that RNG discussions "suck" precisely because they get stuck in that binary, and proposes stepping away from it to "explore the design space" instead. So the site's position is not that randomness is good or bad, but that the question itself is usually asked the wrong way.

The core argument: stop asking "RNG or skill?"

The article's title and framing make the stance explicit. Rather than treating randomness and player skill as opposing forces to be weighed against each other, Wayward Strategy treats randomness as one design tool among many. The productive question is not how much randomness exists, but what kind of randomness, where it sits in the decision chain, and what it does to the player's experience.

This matters because "RNG vs. skill" collapses very different mechanics into one bucket. A damage roll, a spawn location, a fog-of-war reveal, and a matchmaking draw are all "random," but they affect skill expression in completely different ways.

What the "RNG vs. skill" framing gets wrong

The site's critique implies several recurring problems with how players and designers talk about randomness:

  • It treats randomness as a single quantity. Two games with "the same amount" of RNG can feel completely different depending on when and how it applies.
  • It assumes skill and randomness are zero-sum. In practice, randomness can create skill expression (adapting to an unexpected situation) rather than only diluting it.
  • It skips the design intent. Whether a random element is acceptable depends on what the designer wanted it to accomplish — tension, replayability, comeback potential, or something else.
  • It produces heat, not light. Framing the debate as a fight makes it hard to reach useful conclusions, which is why the article calls the discourse a "disaster."

A more useful way to think about it

Wayward Strategy's suggested move — "explore the design space" — points toward asking concrete design questions instead of taking sides. Useful angles include:

Question Why it matters
Where does the randomness sit? Randomness in inputs (e.g., damage rolls) differs from randomness in setup (e.g., map or spawn).
Can the player respond to it? Randomness the player can react to becomes a skill test; randomness they can't becomes noise.
Does it create or remove decisions? Good randomness opens new choices; bad randomness just overrides the ones already made.
What is it for? Tension, variety, and comeback mechanics are legitimate goals that randomness can serve.

For players, this reframes complaints: instead of "this game has too much RNG," the sharper question is "which random elements can I actually play around, and which ones just decide outcomes for me?" For designers, it means treating randomness as something to place deliberately rather than something to minimize or maximize.

Where this fits in the site's broader coverage

The RNG article sits alongside Wayward Strategy's other design-focused writing, including its exploration of Real-Time Tactics versus Real-Time Strategy and its breakdowns of Company of Heroes 3 faction identity. The through-line is design analysis: the site tends to examine how mechanics shape play rather than ranking games or settling fan arguments. The RNG piece follows that pattern — it is less a verdict on randomness than a call to argue about it more precisely.