True randomization is actually pretty damn
annoying, IMHO - it tends to result in "runs" on a
particular subject when teams have different strengths. I
prefer packets to have some internal structure - ie 2/4
of science questions in the first half and 2/4 in
the second - with a generally similar distribution
for the other major subject areas, with the minor
ones falling where they may. This is especially
important on timed packets, where you can easily end up
with a "lit packet" or "geography packet" or the like
as a function of "true" randomization, because, with
computerized randomization, some topics inevitably slide to
the front or back of a packet that was well-balanced
as originally written. In contrast, subjective
randomization by a good editor can result in a packet that
varies subject matter and time frame and style and such
from question to question. To me, this is more
playable, more "balanced" to the end user (that is, the
players) than any computer-randomizing
technique.
/\/\att Schneller, Vandy '01