Skip to Content
 

Randomness and Luck in Board Games

8 replies [Last post]
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I've been playing a very neat game by Terry Goodchild called, "Sport of Kings" -- a horse racing simulation game. There is really no information about the game on board game geek, but here is a link for those that are interested: http://flyhi.de/games/lambourne2.html (you will need to scroll down the page a bit).

I played one race and noticed that the only real decisions in the actual race (pre-race activities have a lot of little decisions to make: choose the appropriate horse for the distance, the jockey, whether to use a special "supremely fit" card on the horse and so on) was whether to put the horse "under pressure" to run faster. It is a little risky because your odds of moving faster usually equal the odds of going slower. This is a very important decisions to make during the race. Individual horses are quite different and some horses perform better under pressure opposed to others. There is a learning curve in learning how to best run your horses.

While the game works beutifully as a simulation and is simple, I was personally a little disappointed by the lack of decisions in the actual race itself. However, the game was still fun to play.

I have noticed with having played games with my girlfriend's kids and some of her family members (who played board games in the past as kids and never really thereafter) is that (especially with the kids) the more randomness involved in the game, the more they seemed to enjoy it. Have you guys noticed a similar trend?

Is it also fair to say, that in general, more serious gamers are quite adverse to games that have an abundance of randomness or chaos in it.

The "Sport of Kings" game is one of Lambourne Games' best sellers that appeals to a much wider audience of causual gamers and more along the lines of even a family audience.

The reason I'm relating this is to point out that a game can have a limited amount of interesting decisions and still be fun where people will want to play again. I think a lot of the fun with more casual games has to do with the randomness inherent in the game. Like real life, there is excitement in seeing the horses pass each other or fall behind, not really being totally certain who will win, even up to the final stretch (note that this is not totally random as horses to perform on average better than others). There is no doubt that randomness can be exciting for players.

As designers our main stay is producing interesting decisions for players, but I think the amount of randomness and interesting decisions should be curtailed or enchanced for the audience you are trying to sell to. I think the more interesting decisions there are, people need to think more. I believe the more casual and family type audience is somewhat adverse to this. I think they approach a game as a traditional sense of a game: not to be taken seriously with the main intent of having fun with little effort involved.

I think if you are going to make a light game it is important to keep it simple and have a sufficient amount of randomness in there. If you are trying for a more sophisticated, more complicated game then the element of chance needs to be strongly curtailed.

Maybe the ideal is producing a game that does an excellent balance of randomness mixed with a healthy dose of interesting decisions so the outcome of the game is influenced by luck and also skill. Or an idea is to design a game where players have a choice at various stages to go the more strategic make-interesting-decisions route, or one more filled with randomness and less interesting decsions.

What do you guys think? What games do you feel promotes a good balance between the two extremes of randomness and no-randomness (more random orientated or more thought or strategy orientated)? What games, in your opinion, have the quality that both kids and fairly serious gamers can sit down and enjoy equally.

Thanks,

--DarkDream

OrlandoPat
Offline
Joined: 10/16/2008
Another possibility

I don't know if this is what you're running into, but it occurred to me while I read your post, so I figured I'd toss it out there...

Is it possible that the less serious gamers enjoy the more random games, simply because they are more accessible?

I know that I've encountered a fair number of people who are intimidated by games. Either they feel like they're at a disadvantage because they don't play as much, or they don't have the time to invest in learning the rules, or they're just plain insecure and don't want to look bad.

Games with few decisions, and some randomness ("roll the die, move around the board, take advantage of whatever arises") are familiar and easy, and may give the less confident player a hope of relaxing and enjoying the game. Whereas games that are more "if I move this, he'll move that, but then I may draw this card, but what if..." may be more intimidating and less enjoyable.

At least, that's how I feel whenever I'm faced with Starfleet Battles .

Anonymous
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

OrlandoPat wrote:
Games with few decisions, and some randomness ("roll the die, move around the board, take advantage of whatever arises") are familiar and easy, and may give the less confident player a hope of relaxing and enjoying the game.

You have summed up nicely how I feel about the issue. More hard-core gamers enjoy games with more decision because they have more control over their experience. Non-gamers enjoy more randomness because the elements of the game dictate what they can and can't do, they have less to think about and less to learn when playing the game.

As a more avid gamer, I find that I learn complex rules more quickly. Having played and designed a good number of different types of games, I have a more intuitive understanding of game mechanics. In general, gamers that do not recognize and understand mechanics must spend more effort in learning a game. They may enjoy not having to compound that effort with complex game decisions and strategies.

Just my $.02.

Anonymous
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

This brings up a good point as to why Catan is so popular. There is alot of strategy in catan. Build what when and where. However there is also alot of luck. This is why the game is both popular among gamers and non-gamers.

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

My experience mirrors much of what has already been said.

In particular, often groups of gamers have varying aptitudes at different sorts of games and a healthy dose of randomness can make the end result feel a bit less deterministic. When you play chess, the stronger player will generally win, particularly if the difference is big enough.

I tend to find a good mix among casual gamers is "enough luck to explain why I didn't win when I don't, but enough strategy to explain why I do win when I do". Sort of makes the whole game this less of a threat about someones skill out playing a certain game. Also, there aren't lots of people who like to play a game all the time only to always get beaten ...

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

When I just started designing boardgames I had the idea that "luck = bad" and I wanted to make sure that my games weren't "random". However, now that I have some more experience in gaming and designing games I actually think that "luck = good".

A significant amount of luck can make a game very exciting, because it introduces an amount of uncertainty. For example, when I play "Lost Cities", I'm not afraid to start an expedition with a handshake, even when I don't have any other cards in that color. This seems like a risky play, but experience and some basic probability calculations have taught me that this is usually a good play. Then again, Lady Luck is a fickle mistress and sometimes such a "risky" play backfires. Knowing that you made a good play, but not knowing for certain whether this good play will actually pay off or go horribly wrong makes this game so exciting.

One of my favorite 2-player games is a local traditional card game, a bit similar to Uno. The object of the game is to be the first to get rid of your cards by playing cards that "match" the previously played card. Now I think that this game has a lot more stategy in it than people often give it credit for (especially when played 2-player), but, of course, there's still a lot of luck in what you draw. However, this is what makes the game sometimes so exciting. I love it when my opponent is down to the last card and I don't have an answer in hand, but then topdeck a Jack or a Joker and steal the win. Sure, I got "lucky", but it was fun and the games are short enough so you can play another game and take revenge.

I don't like long games that are mostly decided by luck (Monopoly, Pachisi, Risk) or games where you need to waste a lot of brainpower and gametime just to get a +1 modifier on a D20 roll, but luck can certainly be a good thing in a short, fun game.

- René Wiersma

daddyhasgames
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

I like a game that allows the player with good luck to beat the player with bad luck, so even the best player might lose once in a while.

Anonymous
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

Dice or not dice? I’m sure most would agree that both may be nice. The pure strategy/tactics of games of no chance, and the organized uncertainty of dice games, both have their distinct qualities (for instance, a die based game will never go into a loop). Even games of pure chance can be good, I think, if the rules mean that interesting/fun situations arise. In a sense, I guess pure strategy games (without dice) are deeper and require more thought. But that doesn't mean that die games can't be just as fun. So overall, I'm glad there are dice in the world.

If I should guess, I would think that the first game ever to exist, had dice.

Aleatorically yours,
--Simen

Anonymous
Randomness and Luck in Board Games

daddyhasgames wrote:
I like a game that allows the player with good luck to beat the player with bad luck, so even the best player might lose once in a while.

I like for luck to play a certain small role, but I don't think that it should throw a game entirely one way or another. Players should have at least some control over their gaming experience. A player with better strategy and more experience with a particular game should win over a player with worse strategy or less experience.

I like the thrill of well matched players battling back and forth, that's when luck should decide the outcome!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut