Civilization games, or game like Civilization that involve researching techs, always has me preferring to have the techs I research/aim for be random. To do this, when I play Civ IV as an example, I shuffle a deck of cards, and when I research a new tech and the box pops up to select the next tech to research, I draw a card for each tech and highest card wins, and in case of ties I get to pick between the two (or more) tied.

To me this is more "realistic" and definitely more fun, but it does make the game more challenging, and most certainly impossible on the harder difficulties where selecting which techs to research are as important a strategic decision (with as important ramifications) as selecting city placement and issues of war/peace. But it is just more fun for me. And I actually wish there was an option in-game to do this so I wouldn't have to shuffle the cards because I just can't believe I'm the only one that plays it like that (but maybe so?).

With RPG's or other games involving skills, I do the same thing. It has been a blast with all of the Fallout games, as the random result of the skill increases/perks results in play style changes, which again, seems a little more realistic to me and is definitely more fun. But, again, if there are RPG's where it is important to specialize or the game becomes impossible/almost impossible to beat, this then becomes "unfun" and actually results in me NOT liking the game as much. To me a good RPG should be such that any character type that's possible to build with the given choices should be able to win/complete yet there have been many instances where this doesn't appear the case.

So, am I the only one that likes "less choice" and more randomness/ forced adaptability???

What say you good goggers and goggetts?

I honestly think most designers go for this but I'm guessing making it actually work is a lot harder than it sounds. And I'm not talking just about RPGs here, almost any genre, if poorly (and IMO it is poorly) put together can make many aspects of the game completely useless, which not only makes the game impossible to win but leaves the player wondering why the hell the designer put some of that stuff in to begin with. :P

A good example is Titan Quest. There are, to be blunt, USELESS skill trees in that game that if you use will make the game impossible. SO WHY DID THEY PUT THEM IN!? XD

I don't think I've ever had the guts to try this. Although, didn't Alpha Centauri have a similar research system, in that you couldn't decide what to research next and instead only control the general direction of research?
In Fallout, because of the time investment, I always plan out my character, usually going for the sniper perk each time, and it's even worse with neverwinter nights where you can use this awesome thing: http://nwn2db.com/builder

Yes, Alpha Centauri does have such a system where you pick research "areas" only (there are others as well, IIRC Imperialism and Imperialism II did that, but my memory might be wrong on that, been a long time since I played those). But even then I would use cards to randomly select the area to pursue.
And that Character Builder is pretty neat, although I just don't think I can play like that. I'm too fond of the randomness and the way it forces me to adapt mid-game. It's fun!!! (but definitely more challenging and thus at times more frustrating). Yeah, I think you're right that's what they all shot for, and that's why IMO the ones that do pull it off are the good ones, and the ones that don't just aren't good RPG's.

Something that I do though sometimes try to do, which I find can dramatically increase my enjoyment of a game, is to commit to some system that keeps saving to a minimum. Of course sometimes it's not feasible, like Commandos for example, but with something like the original XCom, deciding not to save during field battles completely changed the game's atmosphere for me. Made it more intense, especially nighttime alien raids on major cities - omg...

To me a big part of such games (RPGs, Strategy games,etc.) is to examine the skill tree and the find winning combinations. I think it gets boring when (like in Diablo 3) all skills are more or less equally good because of perfect balancing.

Say you where making a new party for a CRPG and choose a party of 6 mages. Would you expect that to be as good as balanced party? I wouldn't. I think part of the fun is to figure out good combination by reading the rules or trial and error.

Now that you mention X-Com... if you haven't already, you should definitely try Xenonauts in Iron Man mode.
One automatic save after each phase, and that's it!

Ah even better! I've been meaning to give that a go because it looks great, but I think I first want to atempt a playthrough of Terror from the Deep. Hopefully there are no alien blasters / mind control in it :P

Oh heavens yes. Twice the fun for half the sanity.

Nope. In Imperialism you selected specific technologies. I haven't played 2 so I don't know about it. Same here. I love it when some skill choices make the game easier, and there are some that make it extremely hard.

Usually on my 2nd or third runs once I know the game a bit, I pick some of the "useless" skills that my character would pick from a roleplay point of view, but make the game more challenging.

Just to clarify something in my OP

"But, again, if there are RPG's where it is important to specialize or the game becomes impossible/almost impossible to beat, this then becomes "unfun" and actually results in me NOT liking the game as much. To me a good RPG should be such that any character type that's possible to build with the given choices should be able to win/complete yet there have been many instances where this doesn't appear the case."

I never said making certain skill choices shouldn't make the game easier, and as I said the reason I like playing like this is because it does make the game more challenging. But a game should NOT have it so "bad" skill choices make the game impossible to beat. (or so near impossible to beat that one may as well say it's impossible). If a designer gives a player the option to make characters that are jacks of all trades and masters of none, then the game should be such that a jack of all trades character can complete the game. Nothing wrong if it's a little more, even significantly more, difficult. But there are games where if you don't make skill choices "correctly" the game is damned near impossible, if not actually impossible to complete. And that's bad game design. If you wish to design a game that requires one to specialize in order to complete, then it should be set up so that is crystal clear from the beginning, including blocking options at a certain point.

It's just poor game design to say "You can choose this skill mix that we put in there for you to choose, but you can't win the game like that. The only way to win the game is to figure out our secret exact mix, which requires reading guides or multiple playthroughs." That is a game I want nothing to do with.

I think making development progress randomly actually reduces realism because, especially when it comes to character skills, we can assume that effort is being put into certain useful things. In the real world, a company or government will devote research to things they need and hope to use. Sure, sometimes a random event comes along where somebody comes up with a gizmo that is lame and not so helpful, so since this is s game and not the so-called real world, might as well leave it out.

I'd agree in general that game should be beaten (with different degrees of difficulty) by any "reasonable" skill sets, but you can't really expect it to be beatable by every possible skill set that the designers allow. Just because the designers allow the possibility to create a mage with low intelligence, high strength, and low charisma who spends all his skill points on Diplomacy and Detect Evil, it doesn't mean it's bad design if he can't beat the game. Should they include blocking options in this case? No. It's reasonable to assume that anyone choosing this path knows what he's getting into.
That was an extreme case, but there is no clear line of when a skill mix becomes "impossible" and when it's merely difficult.

But yes, in general I do see your point. Nothing worse when you're midway through a game only to discover that a key area is teeming with undead and impossible to beat without a cleric. No cleric in your party? Sorry, you should start again and include one.

Anyone play games like this?

I would bet you do, just after serving breakfast to your guests.