1.
The thing about the input / output randomness distinction is that as a distinction it is agential (based on player psychology) rather than systemic (an actual objective mathematical property of the game system).
In other words, I agree that it "feels" like there is a distinction between input/output randomness, the same way that it feels different to gain 5 points versus take 5 points from your opponent. But mathematically there is no clear distinction.
I will grant that the concept has been helpful to a lot of us as designers, because (a) player psychology does matter and (b) input/output randomness at least
gestures in the direction of many systemic properties.
My goal is not to undo the progress earned by applying the terms input/output randomness, but rather to do even better. We can and should be more precise. I think many here would agree that mathematically clear descriptions of systems can be super helpful in the design process. I do not think input/output randomness is mathematically clear, even when viewed as a spectrum. What variable is the spectrum even measuring? What does it even mean for some kind of randomness to be more "input-y" or more "output-y" than another?
This is where I say yet again that "output randomness is just input randomness for the next turn." Keith, I know you have heard this critique a thousand times before and that you do try to address this critique in your article. But I do not find your addressing of the critique satisfactory. I am not failing to see the match as a structure. In fact, it is precisely
because I am thinking about the match as a whole that I hold the perspective that I do.
I know you have prescriptive goals here. But speaking purely descriptively for a moment, would you actually deny that each player decision in a random game is necessarily both preceded and followed by randomness?
2.
If we view the match as a whole, then we can see that one useful systemic distinction might be between "early" and "late" randomness. I have used this distinction in my own design and analysis and found it useful.
Early Randomness -- Occurs in the first half of the game, before the majority of player decisions.
Late Randomness -- Occurs in the second half of the game, after the majority of player decisions.
And this is just one of many more precise distinctions that input/output randomness only gestures toward. As I said, I don't think input/output randomness is totally unhelpful, and part of the reason it has been a powerful and sticky concept is that it does imply a whole bunch of useful ideas in a general sort of way.
For example another systemic distinction implied by input/output randomness might be the "utility range" of randomness. Utility here is defined as the degree to which something increases the percentage chance of the player winning the match.
Utility Range -- The disparity between the utility of the best random outcome and the worst random outcome.
In a traditional roll-to-hit situation the disparity of outcomes is big and stark. Hitting is clearly good, missing is clearly bad. In contrast, in a dice placement euro game, the disparity is less stark. A 1 and a 6 are both pretty good. They both can be placed on the board and used to acquire resources. Maybe some resources are better than others, but the difference in utility is not as large.
I think a smaller utility range is another piece of the puzzle that unpacks more precisely what people are complaining about when they say they don't like "output randomness."
Anyway, I could go on proposing distinctions, but I'll stop there.
3.
My main point is that precise systemic descriptions are useful to game designers and we should push to be more rigorous with these things. Input/output randomness does not have a rigorous definition, one that actually means something on the systemic level. As a sort of vague idea cluster, input/output randomness may serve a purpose in pointing us in a fruitful design direction. And as an agential description of the kind of randomness that turns players off it may help us to design better for player experience. But I worry it can potentially be limiting if people treat it as being more precise than it actually is.