It is certainly appropriate to use chance to determine whether a player has been hit by lightening, suffered crop damage from a violent storm or been born into a family of poverty and disease. These can be considered chance events. I'll concede that in certain instances a person might be able to develop a creative solution in which chance might be appropriately used to determine non-chance events, but generally it indicates a lack of imagination and greatly reduces the instructional and emotional impact of the game. Failure to Establish Ownership. What one wants, generally, is for the participants to take responsibility for his or her actions in the game.
Ownership gives the game or simulation process power.
Much of game design is trying to eliminate the possible excuses which people might use to evade responsibility for their decision. Failure to Follow Through to an Appropriate Level of Completion. There are hundreds of games and simulations tucked away in desk drawers and file cabinets which work when the designer is present to explain the model, answer questions, and patch up unforeseen problems. Such experiences are appropriately completed. In fact, it could well be argued that all games and simulations should be of this nature as the presence of the designer can greatly increase the richness and flexibility of experience.