Fluffy Crunch in the forty first millenia: Bad Fluff Translations & Randomness

Lately iv been getting into warhammer 40k and, like with most systems I pick up, I'v been delving into just about every rule there is, read just about every thing you can possibly do, and yes, read tons of fluff too.

Warhammer 40k (WH40k), like most board games, is in a unique position when it comes to fluffy crunch because almost every rule in game you come into contact with as a player, this means there are so many opportunities for fluffy crunch, but also so many times where something doesn't quite make sense.

As a quick example in the Ork rules-book 'Waaagh!!! Grimskull' you get a bonus to rolling on some table. The fluff in the book portrays Grimskull and his waaagh! (army) as a disciplined (at least for orks) no-nonsense, pretty fearless group, and also quite elite (small but powerful). However this bonus means your entire army becomes more likely to squabble and rewards bigger sizes of more expendable guys. This is a pretty clear failure to translate story to mechanics. Especially when considering instead of giving a bonus, subtracting from the result would make them less likely to squabble and reward smaller sizes. (not to mention subtracting being better than adding is a bit odd too).

But something else WH40k highlights is how even when the crunch is fluffy it can still go bad. This particular brand of badness happens so often it sort of got its own jargon in the form of 'FUN*'. Basically any time a system represents something being chaotic or unreliable via randomness.

Extra credits (look them up on youtube, if your here you'll love them) did a video once revolving around hearthstone and how randomness is very hard to manage in games and how, when poorly managed leaves the players feeling hollow in victory and bitter in defeat, although sometimes can lead to a cool moment when a one in a million chance leads to victory, which anyone who has been a part of knows is cool, and something games should allow for, but not at too greater cost.

However how do you show something being chaotic or unreliable without it just being random? Well its hard not to, but there are ways you can do it without it being too bad but still capturing that edge of your seat, I really hope this works feeling.
 For example in Warhammer AoS (the ones with swords that aren't part chainsaw) there are a set of units belonging to the skaven; ratmen with inventions that are notorious for being mainly spit and ductape and unreliable. They way these work in game is they have the OPTION to roll in an attempt increase the weapons power, and any result other than a 1 they perform better, and the 1 result has a minor negative.
In this example you as a player sort of get to put yourself in the shoes of a skaven, this thing might be unreliable, but its the best thing I have and I might as well roll for it, since its a pretty big reliable benefit. You get to have your random cake and eat it too so to speak. The fact that you have the option is pretty important here, not only does it minimize randomness by not making you roll it if you don't want/need to, but it also makes you take the step into the shoes of the skaven by willingly choosing to accept the random chance.

 Warning: Technical
There are a few problems with this however, primarily there is a problem known as negative bias, basically 'almost everyone will say that they are unlucky'. The way it works is even if you roll 1 every 6 times, it will still seem like you roll it more than you should, firstly its a negative thing so you remember it clearer so it seems like it happens more and secondly because the outcome is so likely to be not 1 you naturally plan as if its not 1 so when it is it throws a whole spanner in your thought process making it stand out even more compared to if its 2+ it barely even registers as an event.

This 'negative bias' is the reason randomness in systems is seen as a bad thing, even if a random thing is balanced accounting for it happening the amount of times it does, and even if the impact is low, it still seems like 'Gosh I never get lucky' comes out of the mouth of every person who interacts with the system. More on how something being balanced around randomness not always working out even if it does on paper another time.

                              So how do you put randomness in a system for all the positive                                                               fluffy reasons without making a bad system?
                                                     Its complicated.