[Silverface]

I'm new to Gwent but so far I think cards with provision cost above 12 like Siege should have a higher RNG. These cards have cost you a lot and you deserve to have them more often. Other than that I think a bit of randomness is necessary for the game to remain replayable.

[GenLiu]

As you mentioned, RNG is essential to some extend, to make a game interesting (it's also unavoidable in a card game since it's pretty difficult and not healthy to go around concepts like card draw, for example) but I think it's easy to reach a point of too much RNG.
Simply put, I think the issue isn't the RNG itself but the range of power it can give you.

You mentioned my best example, which is Cantarella. I used to love that card but now think it had become very poorly designed. The reason being because, depending on what she pulls, she can either lose or winyou the game on the spot, which is exactly the kind of RNG that developpers should avoid like the plague (there's way too much room between the lowest and highest possible value she provides).
That's the same reason why people hate Traheaern so much.

And fun fact, it's not even really a matter of RNG. A card that have zero RNG and provide the same range of value would be just as bad, imo. That's why I personally dislike how they designed Gernicora. Depending on your opponent's ability to remove it and your ability to make fruits, her value varies way too much.

On the other side of the spectrum, a healthy amount of RNG is still important and that's actually a problem Gwent also have.
For example, I personally believe that there's still too many tutors in this game which guarantees you to access most (if not all) of your best cards in every game you play. It's not the best of things since it virtually increase the value of your strongest cards even further (not only the card is strong but the your chance to hit it are so high that they're gonna impact pretty much every game too).
I mean, think about it, what's the last time you were in a situation where your opponent needed a big card from his deck to win, you crossed your finger that they didn't and got your wish granted.
I'm not saying that it never happens (it does, obviously) but it's so rare that it kinda speaks for itself.

[WeWillRuleTheNorth]

Like some people before me have mentioned, there is no perfect balance between RNG and no RNG in Gwent. I agree that if you play a game, you have to obey its rules. However, it depends.

Personally, I look at it from two perspectives. From a tournament-based standpoint, I think there should be little to no RNG in Gwent, apart from drawing cards, of course, which is random in itself. Gwent already has too many cards in its card pool to remember and consider various threats that they pose in-game. Even in a given meta there are a lot of possible decks, cards, synergies and things to bear in mind when facing a given deck. Random pings from certain cards that deal damage is enough for me.

Bribery? A little bit RNG but I can live with that, at least it can't directly control the cards in your opponent's deck that eaisly. But Cantarella? The old Viper Witcher Alchemist, which can nearly single-handedly take half of your opponent's points and destroy their entire gameplan (on one of the last Gwent Opens the Alchemist stole a scenario card from the opponent's deck if I remember correctly)? No, thanks. When a player's skill is put to the test in a tournament, they should at least more less know what's coming, at least be able to have a chance to predict and answer their opponent's cards. Extreme, hardly interactive RNG makes it really hard to achieve.

Now, the second standpoint. The overall fun and diversity of the game. Should RNG cards exist in Gwent? Sure, why not, but we should only be allowed to play them in dedicated modes. Definitely not on ladder or on tournaments, because then extreme RNG cards can make playing them toxic and not skill-based. That's my opinion.

[LudicMyst]

RNG is good at some point. It helps to make every match different. The easy example in Gwent is card draw. The problem is when you start to feel like you don't have any control over the course of the match. I would say that, for Gwent, I would keep the RNG that can help you keep a slight edge in the course of a match, like when you hit the Shupe that you need or when Philippa hits perfectly, but I would get rid of the RNG that could let you win almost instantly, like when Alchemist gives you the winning condition of your opponent.

RNG for the fun, not RNG for the win. :)

[DixieFlatline]

Not a big fan of RNG. Noticed a few recently released cards assign random damage values with a high level of variance. I think it makes sense for the Syndicate faction, because it fits the faction's theme, but hoping they don't extend it anywhere else, if they haven't already.

[PurpleNap]

I feel RNG is part of every card game and really fun plays depending on it make Gwent really fun (like Shupe moving a really good card on your side). But regarding specific cards we have to judge each of those depending on how much they can change a game (and without big punishment). To elaborate further, something like opponent winning R1, passing because long round is better for them and then you YOLO a card and take opponent scenario, is really unfair and makes the experience frustrating. If you have a card that can play for 0 or 40 points without an answer it has to be evaluate it with care to find if its a problem.

Regarding your examples, Bribery and Cantarella have the downside that you must play the card. Alchemist was just a mistake.

[dylogys]

I would like to see less RNG in games like Gwent.
I designed a card game a while ago and there was almost no RNG involved.
But there were still things you couldn't predict with elements like bluffing.
A great example of the idea in Gwent would be traps.
The problem for me is that traps are sadly build very RNG heavy. Cards like Iorveth's Gambit take away all of the bluffing you can do, because the decision was again taken out of your hands.

TLDR more cards like Traps less cards that use the word random.

[Mid2112]

Most RNG decks are built around a plan. Those decks I don't mind, but the high rolling on a dry pass can be a bit tilting.

[edrichv]

As a longtime Hearthstone Player, I have seen a great card game slowly but surely devolve into a mess of a casino game because of RNG

Imagine paying money to buy cards that cannot be used strategically, because they are inconsistent. You cannot build a reliable deck, because the cards in themselves are unreliable.

Literally, one deck in the game was called Casino Mage. Every card in the deck had a eandom effect, and the outcome of the game was pretty much always determined by the high (or low) rolls you got from those cards.

Making victory rely on RNG outcome is wat really kills the experience for me and I hope Gwent never goes there.

At the moment it does not seem like it is, at least. Maybe a bit so like with massive RNG cards like Alzur, but otherwise good job.

Please, Gwent. Use HS as a cautionary tale. Don't devolve into RNG sillyness.

[Vinra]

I agree that pure RNG cards can be gamebreaking, but cantarella can usually be played around if you plan ahead when playing against ng?