Hey all! I’m new to the Forum and this is my first post. So, here goes...
I have a love for wargames, but the luck factor involved has always been a subject of contention. RISK is the classic example (to my mind) of a game of luck that defies the most stalwart strategies. I rather like rolling dice and I’m not completely opposed to chance, but when a player loses too much control and must depend upon the dice rolls, I feel like the most important part of the game is left behind: strategy. Why does the attacking player roll only three dice for 37 attacking units? And why does defense only roll two? This has often been a subject of debate between me and my gaming buddies. Some try to justify that the attacking units are bottlenecked and therefore can only attack in small numbers at a time...but why is this true for every battle that takes place when more than three attacking units are present? (These are generally rhetorical questions, so don’t feel the need to answer them directly) I don’t want to get caught up in a debate over RISK. I just feel like the RISK combat system is not complex enough to even come close to accurately representing a strategy game, but then again...it is risk.
My friends and I, in an effort to capture a game more based on strategy and less on luck, graduated to playing the newer more complex versions of RISK. i.e. RISK 2210, LOTR RISK, etc. But, the frustration continued and we were not satisfied.
When I encountered Axis & Allies I was relieved. The amount of dice rolled, one for each unit present in the battle seems to be a more sensible system. An upset can occur, but generally the superior strategy, if executed properly will prevail...
A fellow gamer of mine is vehemently opposed to the rolling of dice to determine the outcome of a battle. He feels that this undermines his strategy, even in the case of Axis & Allies where the sheer number of dice rolled bring the results ever closer to the bell-curve model we hope to find. So, he brought to us a game without dice: A Game of Thrones. He declared that it was far superior to the others because no dice-rolling was involved, and he somehow felt that that would eliminate the elements of chance involved. I think Thrones is an excellent game, but the element of chance remains and that’s not a bad thing. Instead of dice, there are cards to be played that add a certain number to the combat strength of units. The chance remains...
I’m not even really sure where I was going with this...I didn’t really have a destination in mind from the start. I suppose this is more of a stream of consciousness of mine when “luck” and “dice” are on the mind. I’ve gathered some useful information and justifications for the presence of luck in wargames, and board games of all types. I guess, my opinion on the matter is that as long as the players feel that they have more control than the dice, or cards, or whatever instrument(s) of luck involved, then it’s all good. 8) Oh yeah, and it should be fun too ;)
I would love to hear others’ opinions on the matter of luck, so feel free to drop a response.
laters~
Thanks all for sharing your thoughts on luck. I feel like a lot of good points were made and supported well. Your opinions have given me a fresher view of the pros and cons of luck.
I feel as though the general consensus, from reading your responses, as well as other posts on luck, is that if luck is not the controlling factor in a strategy game, then the players will feel as though their victories are more deserved, which results in happier strategy-game enthusiasts. The fact that luck does play into the game to some extent does leave room for those with less skill to get upset victories, which will keep them entertained as dsavillian pointed out.
Rob, I really enjoyed your post; it was very thorough and not exhausting at all! I think you made lots of good points there. I feel as though your justification for the presence of luck in board games - that "luck exists in the real world all around us" is right on. It seems only natural that because luck is so present in our everyday lives, it would be reflected in the games we played.
I really like that you pointed out that "People want to be able to look at a mysterious element when they lose, rather than critically evaluate their play." This statement is key. I feel like it would be easier to illustrate why I think this point is key with an example... Two large armies collide in Axis & Allies, a dice-based strategy game. The careful strategist runs the numbers ahead of time and establishes that, according to probability, the battle will be an even match. Throughout the battle, it remains even and it ends up coming down to a final die roll... This sort of luck gives the loser an easy out - "Unlucky". Now, if the loser is a decent strategist, this one loss won't dictate board game victory or defeat. Though in some cases, battles like this occur - where it comes down to a single roll and whoever wins the roll, wins the game. The scenario seems as though it could be very frustrating for some, but in my experience, if a game ends in such a manner, the losing players aren't crushed because the game was so close and it was luck that dictated the final result. All parties understand that it could have gone either way and (hopefully) people are playing because they enjoy the game, and being the winner is only second on the list of priorities.
Hope to hear from you all again soon.
~laters