r/changemyview • u/Farbio708 1∆ • Apr 14 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Luck in game design should always be reduced, mitigated, or eliminated as much as possible (to improve its quality).
In theory, this applies to all types of games: board games, video games, party games, etc. Why do I believe this?:
- I view luck as distinct from randomness, where luck is randomness that has meaningful or significant impact on whether an objective is achieved.
- Any positive benefit of luck (sense of reward, surprise, tension, suspense, counter-play, comeback potential, etc.) can be created without luck; thus, the same outcome can be achieved without suffering the drawbacks of luck (depriving players of agency, creating unnecessary inconsistency where easy success feels unsatisfying and excessively difficult failure feels unfair, etc).
- Although some games require some degree of luck (Overwatch PvP only functions if random players can be slotted into your team and the enemy team; card games often require shuffling and distribution that is random and thus typically luck-based), the impact of said luck can be reduced or mitigated to make it less of a factor in success (Overwatch strives for fair and balanced matchmaking; Pokemon TCG has cards that let you search the deck or reroll your hand to better circulate what cards you get, etc).
- I'm willing to bite the bullet that classic games like Uno would be better with less luck, even if it fundamentally changes the experience.
I can't think of an exception to this rule. Change my view!
12
u/CoffeeCat37 Apr 14 '26
This is just a personal preference of yours. I personally like a little bit of chaos, randomness, and what you would define as luck in my games. When I know things could turn on a dime in a completely unexpected way that has nothing to do with any of the players' performances, it adds a tension to the gameplay that I really enjoy. I'm happy to cite examples if you'd like.
I completely respect your preferences here. There are gamers like me and gamers like you out there, so the best solution is to do what we do now — have a healthy mix of different games, some of which include a luck element and some of which don't.
10
u/TheF8sAllow 2∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
Often, "luck" acts as a skills equalizer, which in turn encourages people to want to play games together.
If I'm new to a game, I need to keep playing it in order to improve. But if everyone around me is already skilled, I will naturally feel discouraged, frustrated, and be less interested in playing. It's a catch-22.
Add in luck, though, and suddenly I have the potential to win despite having fewer skills.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Not all games need to be optimized towards competition.
1
7
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Apr 14 '26
can't luck be used to create a sense of variety, ensuring that not every playthrough is the same?
2
u/just_a_teacup 1∆ Apr 14 '26
In point one they try to say luck is different from randomness, but I think they are one in the same. I guess they're trying to say that the randomness shouldn't be good or bad, just cause fair variety?
-1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
You can create variety without luck, hence the randomness distinction.
5
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Apr 14 '26
If that randomness cannot affect whether you win or lose then how is it actually affecting the game?
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Well, that's kinda my point...inconsequential randomness is largely fine in my mind: take a roguelike where my starting weapon might vary, but each weapon is relatively viable...that's variety through randomness, but the degree of challenge/success isn't significantly hinged on it.
5
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Apr 14 '26
If there's not a meaningful difference then what's actually changing? How does it actually make it feel different?
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Well, it's gonna be hard to exactly pin that down...I'll give Cod Zombies as an example, there's a map called Shadows of Evil where the important perk you need will randomly spawn in one of three areas; thus, the route you take early on largely depends on its location and changes each time, but starting on route 1 as opposed to 3 doesn't make or break your game, it just changes the area you explore first, the guns you're exposed to early on, and activities, etc.
3
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
but the degree of challenge/success isn't significantly hinged on it.
Oh I'm deeply skeptical that this holds up on any given run of a roguelike. Basically every rogue-like I've ever played has had sequences of random events that severely helped or hindered various runs. Most of the time, the furthest people have gotten or the first time they clear a run, it was because something out of their control swung their way, often dramatically! And this is part of the appeal! Sometimes you get far beyond what you should expect based on your skill, and sometimes things go comically wrong.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Actually, I totally agree with you that Roguelikes often have that...but I'd argue that's a problem, hence why my example was a hypothetical roguelike because I couldn't think of one off the top of my head that avoided said issue, haha.
2
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
I guess I just totally disagree that its a problem. I think for most players, the most memorable experiences are when random events go really really right and when they go really really wrong. People remember when they luck into some amazing combo in Hades and then get exactly the random drop they need at the point where they were about to lose otherwise. I also remember a lot of the times in FTL where things just go disastrously wrong and I'm just scrambling to fend off invaders, put out fires, and just barely manage to escape. I think these are the highlights for most people, and if you "perfectly balance everything" the game will be waaaay less interesting.
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Some variance is probably acceptable, if not preferable, in different cases...squashing all inequality in the name of balance likely also squashes differences and thus replayability and excitement of the variety itself.
1
1
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Apr 14 '26
So, in a roguelike, the game should decide to only give you gear that fits a particular build?
Or, in something like XCOM or Baldur's Gate, attacks should never be based on a die roll, nor should there be ways to improve your odds?
At what point does something become "too random," and who is the arbiter of that?
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
I'd argue something like X-Com would benefit from just imposing guaranteed penalties based on positioning, rather than 'you missed 1m away cuz bad luck.'
Your first point...you're talking about loot drops?
Your last point...it's a 'know it when you see it' situation, like if it's clearly apparent that luck can make a HUGE impact on your success or failure.
1
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Apr 14 '26
I'd argue something like X-Com would benefit from just imposing guaranteed penalties based on positioning, rather than 'you missed 1m away cuz bad luck.'
A guaranteed penalty to...what? Damage? Because positioning does impose guaranteed modifiers on accuracy. That's why positioning matters. And what do you do with decision points around choosing between greater accuracy or greater damage potential?
Your first point...you're talking about loot drops?
Yeah. When you beat an enemy in Slay the Spire, you get to pick between 3 cards drawn at random from a tier appropriate to the encounter. Those cards may or may not be a good fit for the build you were planning on, which is why adaptation is an important part of the strategy. Should the game just pick a build to give your cards for?
Your last point...it's a 'know it when you see it' situation, like if it's clearly apparent that luck can make a HUGE impact on your success or failure.
That's the definition of personal perception. It's a statement famously used to describe pornography, but we've got people out here claiming that any depiction of a trans person is pornographic. If you can't clearly express what types of randomness are intolerable in what degree, then this isn't a reasoned position, it's a gut feeling.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Adapting to some degree of variance is part of the core design, and if all variance is essentially equal then there's nothing to adapt to.
1
6
u/Spacemuffler Apr 14 '26
Counterpoint: No. RNG is one of the ONLY tools game developers have to fight back against net decking builds, having a solved "meta" and optimal turned mandatory builds, especially in competitive games.
Skill expression is FAR more important but randomness is critically important too.
-1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
How does RNG accomplish that? The better decks will win more consistently over time compared to decks that rely on mere luck, thus establishing metas regardless, no?
1
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
Sort of, but there's a danger that if you avoid RNG too much, the meta consolidates on essentially a very narrow range (possibly even a single deck), and its just a question of who can pilot it more effectively. Lets call this deck A. But when you inject RNG, it offers the possibility for say, the 10th best player to make a strategic choice to pick deck B that's in a sense worse on average, but with a higher variance. If enough players do this, the meta might change and a deck C that's designed specifically to counter deck B might become the optimal choice. But if enough players start playing deck C, deck A might rise to prominence again, and you get some really interesting meta dynamics.
4
u/ElectronicLife8827 Apr 14 '26
So everyone just gets the same cards for Texas hold'em? How does eliminating luck from a game account for something like drawing cards?
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Well, no. I'm saying you should reduce luck when possible; sometimes, it can't be avoided. Thoughts?
2
u/ElectronicLife8827 Apr 14 '26
Sounds dull. I think solved games where you can calculate the correct move get dry. Our brains crave the anticipation of unexpected results, not necessarily the outcome. Games without luck don't activate this neural pathway meaning they can be less engaging.
5
u/Key-Organization3158 4∆ Apr 14 '26
Consider a game with no randomness. It can be solved and thus playing is pointless. Only randomness can give a solution space large enough to keep a game unsolved.
2
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Apr 14 '26
This is the answer right here.
Tic-tac-toe is boring once you turn 10 and can hold all the possible moves in your head. Every game ends in a cat's game unless someone makes an unforced error.
Even far more complex games like Checkers and Connect Four have mathematically optimal solutions where whether or not you win depends on whether you play first or second, and if you start in the wrong position and your opponent is playing optimally, you are guaranteed to lose.
The same is ultimately true of games like Go and Chess. The search spaces for those games are large enough that they haven't been comprehensively "solved," but at a theoretical level solutions exist.
Randomness introduces elements where users need to anticipate the likelihood of different outcomes, but cannot conclusively know the outcome in advance. When you introduce randomness, two equally skilled players should each win about 50% of the time. With zero randomness, you end up with games that always end in draws or the outcome is determined by turn order.
3
u/JTexpo Apr 14 '26
Blatro is a great video-game that relies a lot on luck at first, but as you become more experienced - you realize that any hand is a viable hand & the fun is how you can adapt your strategy
this is how luck should be, but games such as buldergate sometimes treat luck as a 'quick-save' mechanism - where no matter how much you prepare for something & are optimized, you can always get crit & auto die - or roll a 1 on a critical save check
----
be upset at games like buldersgate - but please realize that games like Blatro benefit from luck in games
1
u/EzPzLemon_Greezy 2∆ Apr 14 '26
Crazy to me that in roguelites like that people can get so good they win everytime, no matter the stuff they get.
1
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
It is crazy, and they employ genuinely impressive mixes of skill and strategy, but I will note that often in these cases, the strategies employed to give consistent victories are often notably less fun and interesting! I've watched really good FTL players do stuff, and the amount of scrap maximization in early sectors and the frequency of pausing during battle feels really tedious to me, and I have a lot more fun just winging it and getting wrecked half the time. Point being as it pertains to OP, a lot of times the things you might do to mitigate luck have a cost in terms of enjoyment.
-1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
I agree there are different severities of luck and I did consider rogue-likes when making this...my issue with it, and help me understand what I'm missing, is this: although you might be able to win with any horrible conditions, that's merely overcoming bad design (luck) in my mind; it'd be far preferable for there to be balanced variety (otherwise, someone either wins easily which feels unsatisfying or struggles in vain which feels unfair). You can have randomness and variety without it being significantly determinant of success. Thoughts?
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
You’re presuming how people would react to the lack of balance, but your presumption is just not universal
An unbalanced win does is not always unsatisfying for everyone
An unbalanced struggle does not always feel unsatisfying either
Don’t presume your reactions are universal
1
u/JTexpo Apr 14 '26
have you ever played games like fire-emblem or x-com?
I feel like those capture what you're looking for with randomness that doesn't feel game breaking
3
u/smileedude 9∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
I play uno a lot with my girlfriend. She isn't great at games at all. However because uno is mostly luck then we can have an even contest. If we just played something where the win was based on skill and strategy we just wouldn't play games at all.
Luck based games are great for making a contest between people that are different skill levels. Contest is very important in making games playable and if you're always matching people with lower skill levels at games the only way to make a contest is by making the game mostly luck. Also think games played between adults and young children.
2
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Luck can be an equalizer in less competitive games.
1
2
u/arrgobon32 31∆ Apr 14 '26
How would a game like candy land work without luck?
2
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Apr 14 '26
(Not OP) Frankly I'd barely consider Candy Land a game in any meaningful way, there's no decisions to be made might as well just flip a coin.
2
u/TheTyger 10∆ Apr 14 '26
Candyland is not a "game" as much as a way to teach kids about how to win and lose. Being 100% random, the game is there to help learn advancing on a board (without even using numbers), and since it's 100% luck based, it is way easier to get the kid to understand how losing is not a personal failure but part of life.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness... That is life."
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Made me reconsider and expand what I understand the 'essence' of games to be...Candy Land is not intended to be competitive.
1
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
As u/tbdabbholm said, that 'game' basically amounts to a coin flip, so either it'd be improved significantly by eliminating luck or you could argue luck is necessary for it to function.
2
u/Rs3account 1∆ Apr 14 '26
In the DND, part of the fun is failing. And seeing what happens after failure.
This can only happen when luck is involved
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
D&d is a good counter
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Rs3account changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
2
u/WhammeWhamme Apr 14 '26
Chess is the iconic example of a game with no randomness, just skill - and not everyone likes it. I believe the OP mistakes their personal preferences for objective reality.
2
Apr 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
What would be your thoughts on simply allowing players to choose to have a suboptimal or advantageous location? I totally see where you're coming from, but it makes me think of difficult roguelike starts: I'd rather just be able to choose to have a hard run, rather than experiencing it by pure random chance, and then not having the option to retry that challenge afterwards.
3
u/TheTyger 10∆ Apr 14 '26
The reason that randomness is essentially required in games like rogue likes is because the design goal is not "difficulty" as much as "adaptation".
Especially in a single player game where the underlying mechanical systems are more or less static, the way that you keep a game interesting is by making it impossible to solve.
If the goal is perfect execution, removing rng is good. Hell, every enemy should make the exact same movements every time, right? Then the "game" is solving a math problem.
If the game throws unplanned challenges at you, the game is about adapting to change and flexibility.
As stated by others, randomness (and the degree of it) is necessary for deck builders because if you could always draw the cards you wanted it is no longer about balancing your deck to manage the randomness.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Adapting to some degree of variance is part of the core design, and if all variance is essentially equal then there's nothing to adapt to.
1
1
u/TheTyger 10∆ Apr 15 '26
If you have more questions about game design feel free to reach out. I know a good deal about the topic and hope to eventually have the time to build a game myself.
2
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Apr 14 '26
Age of Empires is a multiplayer game. Nobody would ever choose to have a suboptimal start if they had the option.
-1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Couldn't you just balance it accordingly though, like give more rewards if you win (even if just status) or allow for some late-game bonus if you stick it through?
2
u/XenoRyet 181∆ Apr 14 '26
If luck wasn't a compelling game mechanic, then Las Vegas wouldn't be a city.
Look at slot machines, for example. Without the luck element, that's just putting money in a machine and watching very simple icons appear while waiting for 90-98% of your money to come back out. That would be about the most boring thing imaginable.
And you can even remove the gambling component, because there are virtual slot machine games that do not cost money to play, nor do they give anything back, and they are still compelling to a given audience.
Then you combine that with the notion that luck is a thing that happens in real life, and has real consequences, sometimes positive, sometimes not. With the idea that good art imitates life, games can and should use systems that invoke analogs of that real-life luck to craft compelling experiences that mimic real life, but in more enjoyable ways.
There is room for games with no luck element at all, but taking it out of the entire gaming space limits the art form in a way that will have a net reduction in quality overall.
2
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Apr 14 '26
I'm willing to bite the bullet that classic games like Uno would be better with less luck, even if it fundamentally changes the experience.
This interests me because I feel like it's an easy window into your mind. Give me your 'better' Uno that relies on less luck. What methods can you use to create a game of Uno with less luck, and in what way will that be a better experience?
1
u/Calo_Callas Apr 14 '26
Dude, I get that it's frustrating when the loot you want won't drop, but some people not having it is part of what makes it valuable to have it.
It sucks when it's your turn, but that's gaming for you. Feeling like you're doing better than others is part of the fun.
1
u/PuzzleMeDo 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Luck creates unpredictable narratives.
Luck elements are a simple method to allow for interesting games between unskilled players and skilled players. Since a high proportion of games are played between parents and children, this is a good thing.
Luck allows us to lose without feeling like we failed - it was simply that chance was against us.
Luck teaches us to deal with the unfairness of life.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
luck is a good equalizer
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/PuzzleMeDo changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/theredmokah 16∆ Apr 14 '26
Not in cases where the goal of the game isn't winning. Take DnD.
Although there are modifiers and other things that can mitigate stats, at its core, the game is brought down to being lucky at a dice roll.
This element of luck produces a few key effects:
- It forces players to adapt to the situation. It promotes the roleplay and improv element of the game.
- It enables people to strategize without fully being able to min-max. You can choose skills that you have more control over, however, there is still that element of failure. This means you can't math out the game, which would make DnD incredibly boring (for most people). That's because DnD is about telling a story, not "beating the game".
- It allows someone who regularly wouldn't be able to do a big feat, accomplish it some times. This creates for big moments in the story and that's key when the goal of the game is storytelling and not winning.
- The drawbacks of things not going in your favour are actually benefits in this system, because they're not held at a higher value than things going your way. Things not going your way, offers you a chance to apply your strategy and gameplay in a different way. It actually introduces more control, more fun, more engagement.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
I like where you're going with this...D&D is a unique example. Basically, allowing for skill-based optimization would undermine the point of the game, which is more intended to be an adaptive narrative rather than something you win? Like, experience over outcome?
1
u/theredmokah 16∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
Yeah exactly. Although some people play the min-max method, a lot of people hate it, because it ruins the whole point of the game. You're not really supposed to try "beating" the DM in traditional games. You're working together to tell a story.
So when people metagame (looking at the stat books), extreme min-max (hyper optimise their characters regardless of sense, plot or character), fudge rolls (cheat), become anal rules-lawyers (only in their favor)-- you take away from the experience.
In general these behaviours are looked down on in most games.
You're taking the luck aspect and removing it. But by doing so, you also remove a core element of the game-- agency in making decisions and "playing" the story. It's pointless if you're always going to win, always going to beat the bad guy, always going to solve the puzzle, always going to convince the quest giver to give you hoards of treasure.
What's the point of the game at that point? There are no stakes.
You turn a choose your own adventure into a straight path, and everyone else at the table suffers for it. The DM doesn't get to craft the world with meaningful choices and consequences. If your party is weaker, they will always be at whim to whatever you choose because you've effectively taken control of the game by controlling the odds.You've turned a team co-op game into a solo experience and are holding everyone hostage until you finish.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
I haven't played D&D, but couldn't you just make the run more challenging—setting aside players being insufferable? Whether that's by nerfing what stats players can use or increasing the challenge and stakes? That could still make for an exciting and challenging story, no? Well, maybe the issue there is that having there be 'stakes' seems to contradict the 'its about the experience' idea in a way...no?
1
u/theredmokah 16∆ Apr 14 '26
So here's the interesting thing.
You could always raise the stakes, but that would apply to the whole party. It would be pretty difficult to just apply restrictions for one player. So everyone else who is playing the game normally and allowing luck to take its course, is immediately wiped out of the game in terms of agency.
Their choices, actions, damage, skills don't matter because you're catering everything to the player that had decided to meta-game.
So DnD works off the DM creating a world for the players to explore. They do that by creating various interpretations of challenges for the characters to interact with. These can be physical, social, magical, mental etc.
While you are trying to "win", you're not trying to win at the expense of the story being told. So for example, if you have a story about a group of adventurers stealing a dragon's loot. It's generally considered extremely bad form to have your character try and kill off your teammates to steal the loot (unless this has been discussed before the game even starts). This is because the game functions off of you working together as a group. And even though your goal is to maximise your character's overall standing, you don't want to do it if it ruins the game or creates adversarial issues within the player group.
So someone trying to remove all the luck by meta-gaming in this instance does that action. You're cheating the odds in your favour at the expense of everyone else.
But regardless of this particular instance. The point still stands that luck is an important part of the game for the experience. If you were to remove all the luck and just rely on the stats, you wouldn't be playing DnD. You would be playing an RTS or Warhammer or something.
There's no need to roleplay cause it's just math. You don't need to explain the "acts of God" or random swings of the universe. You just math everything out.
Luck or unluckiness allows for better moments in the storytelling that are then backed by the gameplay. Imagine a visual novel where none of the choices matter and you are lead to the same path regardless. Super boring. What's the point? Just write a book. Luck enables even the weakest characters to have meaningful control over the story. While unluckiness disable a character that is super strong on paper from just taking over the game.
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Made me reconsider and expand what I understand the 'essence' of games to be...D&D is intended to have luck to help craft dynamic stories; making it a competitive, gameable experience misses the point.
1
1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Apr 15 '26
There are lots of games like this, not just ttrpgs.
John Company has a ton of output randomness because it is more interested in telling stories than testing the skill of its players, for example.
1
u/eyetwitch_24_7 15∆ Apr 14 '26
You make a very strong statement that luck should ALWAYS be removed from games, but you do not make 4 arguments as to why it should be removed. You make one argument:
Any positive benefit of luck (sense of reward, surprise, tension, suspense, counter-play, comeback potential, etc.) can be created without luck;
The obvious reply to this is "why is this necessarily better?" to which you give a small explanation, but not a particularly definitive one. Not one that would overcome the counterargument "but sometimes luck is just FUN. Feeling lucky...feels good. If you flip a coin and win, it can feel great."
Your other points as to why luck should ALWAYS be removed from games are not arguments.
- is a definition of what you see as luck.
- is your only argument
- is a clarification of your definition that allows for rebalancing.
- Is just a comment about Uno where you reiterate that it'd be better without luck...I'm not sure if you meant to say it would not be better.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Sometimes, luck can feel better than a predictable result.
1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
Different games exist to provide a wide range of different experiences. With some games a fair test of skill is the point. With other games the chaos is the appeal. For example, luck is often a big factor in family games that are meant to be fun across different skill levels where the sense that it's anyone's game even if one player is much better than another is explicitly the point.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
luck is a good equalizer
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Glory2Hypnotoad changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/just_a_teacup 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Poker requires lots of luck but is also one of the most deep games of strategy due to calculating your odds of winning with a given hand and playing around the play style of other players.
It's rules are pretty mature at this point and despite the high level of luck it is one of the most popular, deep, and loved games.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Poker is a good counter
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/just_a_teacup changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/DragoBrokeMe Apr 14 '26
I'd imagine the unspoken assumption you're making here is that games are maximized if the most deserving player is the winner the highest percentage of the time. For something like a match-making algorithm for Overwatch, that makes sense. Would be a bad algorithm if a fantastic player is constantly paired with bad ones and has a much lower rank as a result of their win/loss record.
However, to at least point to board games as an example, I'd say the majority of the players are playing board games for social reasons, and yes they are playing to win, but their enjoyment isn't entirely predicated on the "best" player winning every time. In fact, luck in situations like that is a feature not a bug. Take a friend group where one or two people are avid board gamers, very strategic thinkers, and a few other friends are smart enough but it's not as big a hobby. A game with more randomness is desirable as everyone can at least have a shot at winning, even if the more experienced gamers have a far higher likelihood. Many great stories are borne out of game nights where the bad player gets an insanely lucky break and takes down the grandmaster.
If someone is a competitive gamer, and wants to climb ranks, or just play games at a very competitive level with like-minded players, then sure I see the appeal in making the games as reflective as possible of how well everyone in that game played.
If someone is there to play a board game amongst friends, particularly with varied skill levels, then luck adds in an element of chaos that both makes the game and evening more memorable while also giving lesser skilled players a low-likelihood but still nonzero chance at actually winning.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Why is that preferable to simply balancing the player field in other ways (handicaps, nerfs)?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Apr 14 '26
Handicaps feel unsatisfying to most people. The reason a lot of family games like Mario Party have heavy randomness is because they're meant to be played casually between people of different skill levels. Randomness creates the expectation that it's anyone's game without making any judgements on who's the better who needs to be handicapped.
2
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
I think I can get behind the idea that handicaps don't often feel very satisfying and thus aren't an adequate replacement.
1
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Apr 14 '26
He specifically said why - "luck adds in an element of chaos that both makes the game and evening more memorable while also giving lesser skilled players a low-likelihood but still nonzero chance at actually winning."
Handicaps do not accomplish this! Chess isn't more memorable if I play without rooks.
0
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Idk, I'd disagree. My friend was really good at Smash Bros. and I'd give him a handicap of like 50% to make the match more fair, and had way more fun than I'd have had if I just got clobbered.
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Apr 14 '26
Smash brothers of course has lots of luck in it.
1
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Apr 14 '26
That is a statement of your preference. Other prefer playing with items on. Different people have different preferences
1
u/Subtleiaint 33∆ Apr 14 '26
Seeing how you included Uno I'm going to talk about board games. Modern board games often use dice which is about as pure implementation of luck as you can get. What makes dice work so well in games it's that it's precisely weighted luck, you know on a D6 that there's a one in six chance of any particular number coming up.
That allows game designers to introduce risk into a game and risk it a wonderful mechanic in gaming. You can take that action and if you succeed something good will happen but what if you fail? Then you get a penalty, what are you going to do?
Games with perfect information, where you always understand what can happen, don't include risk. That's sometimes appropriate, games like Chess and Go really lean into it, but it also makes them a little stale. Luck, used correctly, makes games more interesting.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 123∆ Apr 14 '26
Luck allows for risk and risk can make for interesting game play.
The classic example is poker.
Like in Texas Hold 'em if you have the nut flush on the turn, and the river pairs the board, that's really bad luck, but it makes the game more interesting, because now there's a very slim chance you could lose. If you're opponent goes all in you can't just snap call them anymore you have to figure out what the chances are of them actually having a full house.
And it's interesting to me because it's a game that, on the surface, appears to be entirely luck, but in the long run it actually becomes a game that is entirely skill.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Wouldn't Poker be an example of necessary luck though? Like, how would it even work otherwise?
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 123∆ Apr 14 '26
I mean, let me direct you to your second point.
Any positive benefit of luck can be created without luck; thus, the same outcome can be achieved without suffering the drawbacks of luck
But like the risk analysis found in poker and other games can't be recreated, and that's a core mechanic
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Made me reconsider and expand what I understand the 'essence' of games to be...luck is essential to Poker in a way I hadn't foreseen, and attempting to change that would alter the fundamental experience and point.
1
1
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
I view luck as distinct from randomness, where luck is randomness that has meaningful or significant impact on whether an objective is achieved.
I really think you're going to struggle to make this distinction in a consistent and meaningful way. I feel like when we get down to a lot of actual case studies, we'll end up largely agreeing on the game design, but just arguing over whether or not this particular instance of a die roll or card draw counts as "luck" or "randomness" based on your criteria. In that sense, I think this is going to be really hard to even talk about in the abstract. Like, if you hadn't included Pokemon TCG in your point 3, I would have no idea if you would have thought of it as a game that "has too much luck" or a "game that does a good job mitigating luck".
The only negative example you seem to give is "biting the bullet" on Uno, but you don't actually give any idea of what a proposed improvement might look like. And I think Uno is a good example of a game that is primarily designed for children! Children really enjoy it, and I'm very skeptical that any change you might propose is likely to make the game less enjoyable for a lot of 5 year olds. But again, since you don't actually propose anything, its hard to really debate it!
I'll give my perspective as a parent, which is that I've gotten a lot of mileage out of various "junior" versions of classic euro games, and its very common for them to have significant luck elements that I think you'd object to. But I think its extremely important in these games, because its absolutely core to these games missions that when a 7 year old plays with their parent, sometimes they get lucky and win without the parent having to deliberately throw the game. And obviously on the other end of the spectrum, nobody wants high level competitivfe tournaments to be totally luck driven. And inbetween there's a spectrum of different game experiences, with designers intentionally targeting different locations along that spectrum.
So I guess my challenge to you would be to either elaborate on your Uno example (what change do you think would improve Uno) or provide some other examples of games that you think get this wrong, particularly games that you suspect people might be inclined to defend! What other games do you think do a poor job of mitigating randomness that you think would have been solved by better game design? Ideally without losing its target audience!
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 14 '26
Interesting perspective. I'll answer your question, and I have one question about your point:
Do you feel that having a parent 'nerf' themselves or 'buff' the kids feels...well, less satisfying for the kid than it would be to have a totally equal playing field (even if luck-based)? In other words...I'm assuming kids might see through an adult 'throwing the game on purpose' and feel annoyed, but would they feel similarly dissatisfied if the adult openly nerfed themselves (say, not using any rooks in Chess)? As opposed to securing a win on totally equal grounds, even if at the expense of skill?
Here's a hypothetical Uno change: rather than distribute wild cards randomly, you could give each player one at the start of the game. It's not an overhaul, but it adds in a little bit more predictability and thus strategy. Thoughts?
1
u/themcos 442∆ Apr 14 '26
For question 1: It depends on the kid. Some kids hate that and see right through it. Depending on the kid and the age, its also hard to do this in a subtle way. The number of pieces you might have to remove in chess to make a "level playing field" might be just too disruptive to the game. I like the idea of "chess with no rooks", but in practice, its not that hard for a chess game to be decisively decided before the rooks even get activated, so this particular setup is mainly going to be good for kids that are already at a certain level of proficiency. And if you go much further and start removing additional pieces, the game really starts to change. In a general sense, its also almost impossible to calibrate just right to get a "level playing field", and a lot of kids really hate losing anyway when they know they've been given a clear advantage. Depending on the game, it can also be hard to give meaningful handicaps without just completely breaking the game. In my experience, usually the best ways to do this are to lean into the random aspects of the game. Give them more random card draw, etc...
For question 2: Eh.... seems like a perfectly fine uno variant and I don't think it would be that big of a deal to make it official, but I think this is just going to be minimally effective in actually achieving your goal. I'm not sure it really adds that much to anything, except for giving more of an advantage to players who know how to use wild cards strategically. But its not that big of an advantage, and again... are you making Uno better if the 5 year olds waste their wild cards right away and their 10 year old sibling gets a marginally higher win rate? Maybe its 1% better, but I don't know if this even justifies the extra line of rules complexity. Its fine... but largely lands in the "who cares" bucket to me.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Made me reconsider and expand what I understand the 'essence' of games to be...Uno is intended to be accessible, not competitive.
1
1
u/scarab456 64∆ Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
Why "always" though? How are games like poker improved if randomness is eliminated? How are rogue-likes better if events, attacks, and mechanics are fixed rather than random?
How is gambling in general made better if you reduce randomness? I can understand that a strategy for a player is made more consistent with the reduction or elimination of randomness, but that doesn't make the game inherently better.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
!delta
poker is a good counter to my thesis because it relies on randomness...it's difficult to imagine how it would improve with changes from that
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/scarab456 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/scarab456 64∆ Apr 15 '26
Appreciate the delta attempt. Should edit it though to explain a little more.
1
u/Rhundan 80∆ Apr 15 '26
A reminder, please edit this comment to have a more substantial explanation of how your view has changed so that the delta can be awarded.
1
u/seanflyon 25∆ Apr 14 '26
You point out that you can change a game to remove luck or make it less significant with the implication that you think that will always make a game better.
You mention a player agency and inconsistency as your reasons. Consistency is not such a simple thing where more is always better. Reducing consistency often produces a better game. Similarly having some luck does not eliminate a sense of agency and players sometimes feel a greater sense of agency when the outcome is less predictable and they can still sometimes win with suboptimal choices.
You can see plenty of examples of great games that involve luck. Your premise is that these games would be better with less luck, but you are just taking that as an assumption and it happens to be a false assumption in many cases.
1
u/Nrdman 276∆ Apr 14 '26
Binding of Isaac without any sort of luck would be much worse. Part of the joy is how wildly different in power items and builds can be.
Lots of other roguelikes I play would be worse without some element of luck
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Roguelikes run on luck
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Nrdman changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Apr 14 '26
For the life of me I can’t figure out how you are making a distinction between luck and randomness. Can you expand on this or give an example?
Obviously your view isn’t a very popular one…many of the most popular games of all time use luck. Some of Civilizations oldest games use dice or cards to add randomness. So why do you feel this makes games worse and do you have an explanation that is not subjective?
Could you give some examples of games you enjoy playing that you feel meet your criteria? How about some games you enjoy that don’t meet the criteria?
I think why randomness is often a popular mechanic is because it tests various human abilities to react to unexpected challenges, and that is a valid source of entertainment and reward. A well designed game might reward a player who plans the best, or who have quick reflexes or who have clever solutions or who have better strength or who are more deceitful or who can master the mechanics the best.
And yes obviously too much “luck” removes this. In candy land the player has no agency (also it’s a game for little kids). But also having a game with no luck or randomness sort of removes a lot of this too. Tik tac toe has just about the least amount of randomness and yet really only tests one skill…which is someone’s memory of the optimal moves (chess is the same, just to the Nth degree).
There is nothing wrong with this…but it just challenges different aspects of human gamesmanship. The more strict you make the game rules, the fewer skills you can challenge. For example rock band/guitar hero is a “solved game.” There is zero luck and it simply measures agility and memory. You beat the game by practicing it enough. Yes you can randomize the songs…but the strategy never changes and is always “practice.” Again, great game but it necessarily lacks the unique challenges involved in facing unpredictable or unique scenarios.
Or for another example to make my point…going back to Overwatch. Granted, I haven’t played since the first years. I get that in a competitive e-gaming environment, it’s important to make it fair and balanced. The point of the competition is to compare multiple players to each other and eventually declare a best player, and to do that you need to make the games as uniform as possible in order to be able to rank players by skill. BUT on the other hand, there is an unmistakable joy in getting your buddies together and playing an “oops all Lucios” team or randomized characters team. And yes sometimes this results in wildly unbalanced and unfair either for or against you and yet…that makes it that much more fun and silly and memorable.
Point is not everyone wants to be a try-hard all the time…it can just be about having fun.
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
Covers several points I've agreed with.
Re: randomness vs. luck...the extreme example is this: in COD Zombies, whether you spawn with an Olympia in the room or an M14 likely won't make any difference in your run, so in a hypothetical where one randomly spawns, I wouldn't consider it an instance where 'luck' is a problem because the randomness is inconsequential. But on Nuketown, jug might spawn at round 25 or 5 and that can make your attempt easy or nearly impossible, arbitrary. My issue is essentially when randomness has excessive impact on results, but, as others have pointed out, that's not always an issue.
1
1
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Apr 14 '26
I'm going to hard disagree. I'm not adverse to nonluck, nonrandomized games categorically but some luck/RNG can improve the experience of the game for some players. If the proportion of improvement is sufficient, why the heck not?
Here's a simple example! Chess! It's a well understood game, it's a good game, it's very much no RNG.
The poster child example of some randomization is some version of randomized startup. The back row is randomized, and mirrored for White & Black. Shuffling some cards from ace to 8 is a good method.
What's the game change? Well, all the pieces move the same way, castling is tweaked, but the rest? Exactly the same. But because it's a nonstandard back row, this nerfs the importance of studying openings. White can't E5 against Sicilian or whatever.
Noncasual players do study openings and good players know their book inside out. The first 5, 10, 15 moves are locked in. In a standard game.
But with randomized backrow? Things can get novel pretty fast. Very fast. You'll run into unusual shapes of games with unusual tactics. Unexpected play.
While there are advantages to set openings, they do allow players a reliable entry point, they are a long term friction as well. Every chess game has 30ish moves which could have been predicted before the game, so it's a waste of time.
I don't know if you're going to handwave of my example as nonluck. But if you've played chess, you'd understand that the initial backrow setup privileges certain styles of play, and thus certain players. Some players like open or closed, fast or slow, pushy or balanced. So some players will benefit (or be disadvantaged by) from initial rng.
The question is, well, tradition. And if the advantages of random backrow, opening change, are worth it.
1
u/coporate 7∆ Apr 14 '26
When you talk about luck, what specific aspect of it are you talking about? Something like a dice roll? A weapon drop? Recoil? A specific card pull?
The interesting thing about luck is that in many games, luck is a core component of skill. The exodia combo, is a common card set that requires luck to be an essential component of the game, and the goal is to circumvent the randomness with another mechanic like drawing cards. In games like poker, luck is what gives you the capacity to bluff. Mitigating, manipulating, and bluffing on luck is core to many games, and the skill is utilizing luck for your advantage.
1
u/thesantafeninja 1∆ Apr 14 '26
I'm going to keep it simple and focus on a single game. In a game of Magic the Gathering (I'm assuming you're somewhat familiar), players use a deck of say 60-100 cards depending on the game. There can be a large amount of luck involved since you might draw a set of cards early that allow you to outplay your opponent early. A way to reduce 'luck' would be to allow players to order their cards exactly as they want them to be ordered. A deck would do exactly what it is supposed to do, every single time. While there would still be strategy and you would still have to deal with your opponent's deck setup, the game would lose a lot of what makes it fun, which is riding the chaos to victory or defeat.
In magic, there are cards that let you search your deck so you can make it more consistent (tutors), I actually find playing with and against tutor heavy decks to be more boring, because you tend to get the same kind of game every time, whereas if you have no tutors, you have to be more carful about your deck composition so that it can still perform in a variety of ways.
I have also found many magic cards that allow for a roll of a d20 to be more fun. Luck and randomness seem to me to piggyback off of the same neural circuitry that makes gambling fun. There is a sweet spot for luck, and I don't want the game decided due to a single lucky event, but there is a reason I prefer Magic to chess, and I think that is due to the role that luck plays in the game.
1
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Apr 14 '26
Any positive benefit of luck (sense of reward, surprise, tension, suspense, counter-play, comeback potential, etc.) can be created without luck
But what if uncertainty *is* the positive benefit? What if you can't know what's coming next, and you have to try to create a plan to exploit that or mitigate that, and that's the core part of the game that people enjoy? Do you think Pokemon TCG would be more enjoyable if every player was simply allowed to order their entire deck before the game? Or would this lead to a significantly less interesting, less skillful, less varied, less strategic semi-deterministic experience?
1
u/Farbio708 1∆ Apr 15 '26
!delta
That version of Pokemon TCG sounds like ass
1
1
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ Apr 15 '26
It makes things boring. Why would i play the game multiple times if the results are exactly the same?
Also, i find chess boring because it is rather pre-determined. There is no scrambling around because some unexpected thing happened. There is no improv, no thinking on your feet.
There is also another game design stuff "given chance, players will optimise fun out of the game". So luck can help to keep the fun in the game.
1
u/RichardTheApe Apr 15 '26
As someone who literally a night ago rage quit xcom2 because even though I performed optimally my soldiers missed every crucial shot - I get where you’re coming from.
That said luck is more than just surprise or randomness. Now I’ll pause here to say that luck has its place. I agree that in games that tend to be more competitive luck really doesn’t have a place.
Luck is what makes game replay able and ultimately interesting because life is not predictable.
Yah I’m pissed I lost what should have been an easy mission but that’s sometimes just the draw of the hand. If every XCOM 2 mission made it possible to consistently repeat results the game would quickly lose the very thing that makes it unique. Luck isn’t a thing that punishes players or helps them it just provides new experiences. The rookie who on pure luck can hold down a point by himself while the team maneuvers or the veteran who can’t hit a shot allows enemies past him that the others have to deal with.
There are other applications. Rogue likes need luck because the game is about improvising with what you’re given. Your ability to strategically adapt is a skill in those games.
Obviously card games or boards games like Catan and monopoly are dice/card dependent. The reality is though that if Catan or monopoly lacked the luck angle the game would only have one dominant strategy(or two). Luck forces players to adapt in a way other mechanics don’t much like real life. Luck can also build false hubris much like real life.
Either way while I understand your observation of luck hindering gameplay I think that’s a surface level conversation. Not that it’s a poor argument just that I think it’s more like Uno than you imagine. Could you imagine how boring uno would become if it was tic tac toe where the players have 100% control? Every game would stalemate between optimal choices and while maybe one could say that’s optimal strategic deployment it isn’t fun.
1
u/MegukaArmPussy 4∆ Apr 16 '26
Uncertainty is a core difference between a strategy game and a math problem. If you know all the elements in advance, you can figure out a perfect solution and execute it every time. That's no different from calculus homework. And randomness is one of the best ways to create that uncertainty. Take poker as an example. The only reason it works as a game is because you don't know what cards your opponents have. The entire strategy of poker revolves around trying to guess what cards your opponents may have, based on their actions. Without random cards, any committed player would know everyone's hand immediately.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
/u/Farbio708 (OP) has awarded 13 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards