No luck = No fun?

I too have a project called "Archon: Circlet of the Heavens". It was loosely "conceived" around an old PC game called "Archon: The Light and The Dark"... I was wanting to use an RPS-5 with Gemstones to indicate which Trios of colors were being used.

But the game never went any FURTHER. It's still stuck in the "Design Phase" with no real mechanics and method of play. I just liked the NAME and the Gemstone concept.

And to answer your question, if your game is 100% purely deterministic (which can be possible), you can INJECT luck in a different facet of the game. For example, "Crystal Heroes" (CH) is a Tile Laying game (like Carcassone) and the Area Control and Combat is 100% deterministic. If you have the right Tile and your opponent has poor defenses, you can conquer his Tile with no other form of defense.

However the Tactical Layer for collecting LOOT (the rewards after a conquest) is "Custom d6s"-reliant. That adds a lot of luck but with the custom dice, maybe less luck and more decision making too. The real issue is that the game is BALANCED with these two (2) separate layers.

So you CAN have 100% determinism and ADD LUCK for the FUN factor (or a little of unpredictability). When I say that the Tactical Layer adds a lot of luck, not so much TBH. Firstly when you conquer a opposing Tile, once the LOOT is randomly drawn from the pouch, the conquering players get the choice of choosing the first LOOT FREE (as the victor). Then rolling the dice on that same turn, he gets 1 to 2 OTHER chances to collect MORE LOOT on his turn. So being the player doing the conquering is favorable.

That took me a while to figure out... Because I did want to REWARD the conquering player and I didn't want the game to feel RANDOM! This solution gives priority to being on the winning side of a conquest.

And from the perspective of Archon, it wasn't 100% deterministic BECAUSE your pieces needed to Battle each other in a separate duel screen. The winner of the Battle would stay on the Table, the loser's piece gets removed. That whole Battle aspect had a lot of LUCK and you needed to be good at moving around, firing and managing to defeat your opposing piece.

But it was a GOOD game. Not the best, but I played it on a few occasions.

A quick Google tells me that 40 million people play chess. And that's just in the United States, and doesn't include people who play Go and Checkers. One can quibble about the meaning of the word "fun" but you can hardly argue that luck-free games aren't popular.

Since nothing you can do will please everyone, I wouldn't necessarily worry about those people who equate "fun" with "throwing dice".

I think games that are strictly skill are more enjoyed by heavily analytical brain types. Whereas games with more luck are more on the emotional side. As a analytical leaning Architect personality type I prefer a mix with skill being the heavier aspect. I'm not a huge fan of strictly skill though, because newbies just get owned by experienced players. It can create burnout of new players before they really learn the intricacies of the game. If there is at least some luck, then new players will occasionally come out on top.

I think dominant personalities in general will lean toward skill and submissive personalities will lean toward luck.

Well, the question really isn't about how many people play chess. Rather, it is whether something that has 0% luck is fun.

Today I learned that some people even find it fun to debate search engine results. ;)

But again: with something as subjective as the idea of "fun," I think the sky's the limit. Luck isn't a requirement. This goes for games as much as it goes for anything else.

Further: just because I find something fun today doesn't mean I will find it fun for the rest of my life. It might be fun today, boring tomorrow... And vice versa.

Personally, I feel that way about a lot of things I enjoyed when I was younger. And there are things I find fascinating and fun today that I never would have considered fun in my youth.

I should have provided attribution, but I didn't think it would be a controversial point. Google was not the authority I used; Google was merely the search engine I used to find the authority.

Here's another: it was found (easily) by using Google, but it is from Chess.com which says:

And the FIDE (International Chess Federation) currently lists over 360,000 rated players. These are people who regularly play in official tournaments.

These numbers are smaller than the 40 million I quoted earlier. But you won't find me in either collection, and yet I do play chess, and I do enjoy it.

Millions of people play chess, and any claim that chess (or go, or checkers) is not a popular game seems ridiculous to me.

So (not to derail the OP's subject) I stand by my claim that games with no luck can be popular.

Thanks for the clarifications @Rick. 20,000,000 people is still a lot of registered users. And FIDE's 360,000 surpasses the number of designers on "The Game Crafter" (250,000+)... There are more PRO Chess Players than Game Designer using TGC. Why is this important??? Because I Googled some general terms about the FUTURE of Game Design and it said that 2021 the gross amount of market share will increase from $3.2 Billion to $8.12 Billion...

The is a bright future for NEW games, even though most of the market is consumed by the mainstream staples. I'm working HARD to break that fact. TradeWorlds is a very Tactical Deck-Builder where combat is even encouraged. So conflict is a key element in the game.

Where was I going with all this???

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to be "mean spirited" when I stated 40,000,000 chess players was a LOT and probably not 100% true. But even 20,000,000 registered Chess.com users is really surprising. The main problem with determinism is that it is HARD to get a DEEP experience with a lot of choice and decisions. Like there is ALREADY Chess and Checkers. How is YOUR "Archon" game going to be different than the those two (2) games??? Will you have enough of an audience on crowdfunding? That's another point... People play chess but do they frequent Kickstarter...?

And just remember there is another purely DETERMINISTIC "competitive" game called... Trench...! They had a Kickstarter and made less than $20,000 USD. Maybe something like 500 or so Backers. Nothing to get too excited about ... But it's better than NOT funding. So that kinda answers the KS question (is there an audience). There is but limited and that's from a pool of a LARGER audience (the Publisher had over 1,500 backers in their original pool so that meant 1/3rd showing... Not too bad).

There is also a game called "The Duke". Here's the BGG URL/Link:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36235/duke

It's a bit CONVOLUTED ... But it works. Flipping is a weird mechanic for this type of game. IDK why they did this...? Anyone know why???

There is also a FANTASY Chess game called LOKA. Here's the BGG URL/Link:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/138799/loka-game-elemental-strategy

This LAST game is probably closer than "The Duke". I just mentioned it because it too is a "sorta" Chess game too. LOKA was designed by Alessio Cavatore a semi-known designer ... Working on Warhammer and LOTR. I saw the Kickstarter for LOKA... And it was definitely INSPIRING. Why? Because it reminded me of Archon. And in my version, I wanted to use an RPS-5 given RPS-3 encounters. Still on the backburner ... But hey... I've got a lot to work on ATM.

Just figured I'd provide some CONSTRUCTIVE input (sorry about the Googling... I was being too "picky").

Cheers @Fhizban and sorry @Rick. Hope those Game URLs/Links make up with some constructive examples of DETERMINISM. Cheers!

Note #1: Here is the KS campaign for LOKA in case you want to watch the Video which explains LOKA...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/manticgames/loka-the-world-of-fanta...

I just wanted to talk about LUCK and Determinism as per @Fhizban's OP. In TradeWords (TW), the Attacking player decides what starships he will use to ATTACK his opponent, in addition they also choose which DEFENDING starship(s) will be attacked (Defending Player). If it was PURELY 100% "deterministic" this would me... the STRONGER player would ALWAYS win.

That is of course BORING. And not very realistic either.

In TW the solution I came up with is that each player rolls 1d6 to see which of the two combatants has the UPPER hand in combat. If the Attacker rolls HIGHER than his opponent, the attack is successful and the Defending player must DISCARD the starships lost in the battle.

However if the Defender rolls HIGHER, the Attack ENDS with no loses.

But there is ONE (1) CATCH: rolling a pair. When this happens the OPPONENT (or Defender) gets to go on the OFFENSIVE and a counter-attack occurs... So attacking or initiating an attack can be DANGEROUS too.

I feel like this DICE ROLLING adds a certain amount of REALITY instead of pure 100% determinism. Obviously there are all kinds of REAL-LIFE factors that can be taken into play when Battling. And the double-edge sword of pairs can make for MEMORABLE battles gone completely awry. And it's kind of what makes chatter around the table, memories of amazing victories and sometimes on the losing end, epic failures.

So it stands that you need to figure out what is BEST for your game. Do you need some Tactical Layer (like in "Crystal Heroes") that ADDS to the dimension of the game giving the opponents a CHANCE to earn loot from their own dead carcass (like a vulture circling way up high looking for food). Or does your game need some RANDOMNESS to add some realism or randomness that accounts for unforeseeable circumstances (and that could make your game more realistic).

I'll finish up this post with another EXAMPLE.

In TW there was a Tactic card called "Doomsday Device". Originally the card was supposed to allow a player to destroy any opposing starship IF they rolled a PAIR.

What was wrong with this card??? Let me explain and then you'll know how we REALLY IMPROVED the purpose of this card.

INSTEAD you have to FIRST choose the opposing target starship (for the bomb) and then the next factor was you needed to ROLL HIGHER than the Resistance of the starship.

Why is this IMPORTANT???

Well it adds a layer of STRATEGY and DECISION MAKING. How HIGH do you want to RISK trying to bomb an opposing starship. If it's a 1 Resistance, you need a roll of 2 or higher to DESTROY it.

But if it's a 5 ... ONLY a 6 will do...

All of a sudden a dumb pair rolling instant was TRANSFORMED into a VERY strategic instant card that allowed you to make a couple of decisions rather than rely STRICTLY on randomness (dice rolling).

This illustrates that DICE can be used to add LAYERS to a design and add to the overall complexity of the game. Much like CH and TW. Both use dice and cards... But are very two (2) different kinds of game (Tiles/Tactical Dice vs. Deck-Building/Role Selection)...

So DICE don't always need to be STUPID LUCK (which we all hate except the guy who gets a LUCKY roll... :)

Cheers folks.

Nah. Try telling Reiner Knizia that two player Through the Desert isn't a game, or all the BGG users that made Gaia Project number 8 on BGG (I can't imagine the game would drop out of the top 500 if it was just 2 player).

Games exist that are without randomness after the initial setup and are obviously very fun.

After posting a heavy defense of luck-free games, I would still have to agree that most popular games include some form of random element. There are a few good reasons for this, among them:

- Many people do enjoy rolling dice (and other random mechanisms)
- It can help level the playing field between experts and kids/newbies (as has been mentioned)
- It can enhance replayability by making a design less likely to be "solved".

The last point is worth discussion. Randomness by itself doesn't make a game interesting. But a great danger for any game designer is not realizing that their design has a dominant strategy, a way for one player to always or nearly-always win. This can happen even to experts: Uwe Rosenberg published a game a few years ago (I forget which one) that had a way over-powered tile, and had to issue an update to fix that problem.

Games without randomness are more susceptible to this, and I think it's one reason that designers shy away from "deterministic" games. Game design is hard; designing a luck-free game that remains interesting and varied and balanced after thousands of plays is even harder. Even chess and go have evolved over the past thousand years or so: go started out on a much smaller board, and over time the board has gotten larger as each new board was eventually "solved" by expert players.

As a player, my personal preference is for strategy games with low luck factors. As a designer, I am very fond of shuffled card decks as my favorite randomizer: I think they give a lot of variety and replay value while keeping the luck factor to a reasonable minimum. (If done properly, of course. There are no magic solutions.)

And the standard disclaimer: these are my preferences, and yours may well vary.

P.S. @questccg: No worries, mate. :-) This is a very interesting discussion!

Some games need randomness to become balanced.
But if you add to much randomness, then it would be just a game of who rolls the highest.

In my experience, a game should have at least some factors that a player can CHOOSE from.