I often read and hear people complain about how certain games are not so good, are of lower quality, because they are too reliant on luck. I think this point of view is wrong.
When i was developing my civ game, i tried to keep it as low on chance as possible, keeping the game as skill based as possible. At some point, while soloing it, i felt the game felt too much like chess. Being completely deterministic, you could plan your moves ahead like in chess and somehow didn't felt right for the theme. At that point i started thinking about how luck really influences the game and what is really the best option.
Here are my conclusions. Without any luck, the game is completely about skill.
# First, a loss is always about your lack of skill: never will you be able to complain about your lack of luck to excuse a loss at chess and in Catan you can always excuse yourself with the dice rolls.
# Second, you gain the feeling (and correctly so) that, if you fall behind due to mistakes*, you can never come back up. One can only hope that the other player(s) makes a mistake of similar ammount while you don't make any more mistakes.
# Third, a game without luck will be very demanding mentally and will require alot of commitment from the players. Often, it becomes too tiring and you just want to play something without heating up your brain.
*and your falling behind will always be due to mistakes, because in a zero luck game you always have what can be considered the perfect move and you only fall behind because you don't do that specific move.
# Catan, vs Powergrid #
Many people complaint about Catan for it being too reliant on luck. Many others like it to death (until playing it too much, at least). Many people complaint about Powergrid for it being a math feast (i think the real complaint is: very dependent on calculating moves ahead). Others love it because you have nearly no luck in it and you won't lose because of some unlucky thing.
# Slut-machines vs Chess #
What about slut-machines vs chess? Can i really say that chess is better (especially with so many people playing the other)? I frankly desire to say that slut-machines is a worst game than chess but i think i can't (it is still a stupid money sink that enriches the rich and enpoors you, though).
A game can be more abstract (like chess or Dvonn or ..) or more concrete (like really realistic war games), or something in between. That doesn't qualify as game quality, just as game style.
A game can be long (like Arkham Horror) or short (like Dominion), or something in between. That doesn't qualify as game quality, just as game style.
I think that the same happens with luck. It is just another dimension of game style and never a dimension of game quality. Games with more luck give players excuses to lose, gives players the opportunity to have come-backs and lessens the weight on the players mind's and there is nothing wrong with it. And i added some luck to my civ game, which fits the theme greatly.
This is the BoardGameDesignForum. So, from a designer perspective:
Yes, but do we really need such an excuse?
We who? We the designers? We certainly don't need it. But what about the standard player, the ones we are designing for? Need? There is certainly no need for that. But i think it's certainly helpfull.
In a two-player game, when you're sure to lose, you simply give up. There's nothing wrong with giving up, you save time and can another try in a new game. On the opposite, continuing a decided 2p game is plain stupid (unless the situation is exceptionally interesting).
I, give up? I personally, would probably give up a lost battle. I was a chess player in my youth so i had plenty of practice about giving up lost battles. The players our games are intended to? I won't guess, i will just say with absolute certainty that most players won't give up!
While the goal of chess is checkmate, hardly any game ends this way.
The reason most games of chess don't get to checkmate is because most games are played by experienced players. Every newbie player of chess always plays out until checkmate. The pattern is very strong. Not very experienced players *always* play until the game rules say it is over (or until all the players get bored with the game).
A small portion of luck helps only a little and a big portion turns every game into a sort of Ludo.
It is true.
As for a small portion of luck, that will have a small randomizing effect on the skill players play the game with, but it will have a much greater effect on the hopes of those behind.
We should look for a better mechanic allowing the fell-behind player to catch up; here diplomacy and rules preventing bashing the loser could help a lot.
What mechanics do you propose?
As diplomacy *and* rules that prevent baching the leader, i don't see how that is possible. If diplomacy allows for «allied» players to catch up, it means the «allied» band gained some advantage on the leader (hurting him or helping each other), which means they are bashing the leader. Also, the solution of "diplomacy and rules ..." is imposing diplomacy into a game. Some games we want to have diplomacy, others we don't.
Me, personally, i hate diplomacy in games. Diplomacy games always end up as "chip-taking" games. And, in my circles of friends, i always lose because they regard me as the most threatening player and always band together diplomatically to put me down. In many of the games, i really was the most skilled player. Yet i almost never won, because of their pattern of always eliminating me logically.
How can diplomacy ever be seen as better game style than luck? How can diplomacy ever be seen as better game quality than luck? Diplomacy is even worst than small~medium ammounts of luck in making better skilled players lose games.
Both multiplayer interaction and hidden information make dice IMHO redundant.
What kind of multiplayer interaction? Please don't tell me: "gang up on the leader"... I've suffered from that way too much in my board-gaming life.
About hidden information, that sounds an interessting option, at least for some games (probably not all). Can you give examples of how that can be used to substitute luck in a game?
- It's too easy to put too much luck in a game.
So? It is too easy to die being hit by a car. So?
While a short heavily luck-dependent game may be fun, playing for hours only to get your game ruined by the dice is waste of time.
That sucks, for sure. For example, if a game, by it's rules, always ends up with as D6 -> 1~3 i win, 4~6 you win, it's pointless to play it for 30 mins, even. Probably why the game length is usually related to the ammount of luck involved in the game. I, for sure, wouldn't make a long game have it's finish be heavily dependant on luck.
- Games including luck are much easier to design.
That is usually true but merely by coincidence. That cannot be stated as such.
My first versions of my civilization game were completely deterministic, as i said. I have been working really hard to add small controlled ammounts of luck into the game.
I think that, at most, you could say that their balance issues are easier to be masked.
Playing a game like [Stone Age with most of luck removed][sa] is not very demanding but a lot of fun for me, YMMV.
I followed that link but couldn't understand (maybe because i don't play Stone Age).
Care to explain how a deterministic game can be made light?
I haven't felt the need for excuses for losing since I was maybe 15.
Again, you don't feel the need... We are not designing games for ourselves. We are designing games for other people, for some market share. Most market shares will feel more confortable having excuses for losing.
Yes, but [handicaps][] do the same, except for somebody having to admit they're the weaker player.
I think handicaps are a good idea and i have been planning them for my game. However, they are not easy to mentally implement by the players. I wonder how frequently and how far in handicap players are be willing to go. I think it mentaly hurts more the players being benefited than the other one. But this is just wild guessing.
IMHO the real reason is that designing a good deteministic game is much harder. As for the realism, in [Sid Meier's Civilization][civ] I've seen Militia killing a Tank three times in a row.
Ok .. you're just going rampant on negating stuff. I'm done...