First of all, I'd like to say that I'm a little sad to see this forum getting so little attention lately... The topics here are probably my favorite (and the most useful) on the whole board...
Anyways, I thought I might try and start a new topic here to get the place going again... I apologize if the topic's been covered already, but I didn't see it anyplace else...
So, the topic here is deterministic (non-random) versus random systems. I'm mainly thinking of combat systems here, but it could just as easily be applied to any type of opposed check where two or more people are competing for a desired outcome or goal (so feel free to discuss those, too!).
It seems like there's a few people who aren't familiar with the terminology (I myself didn't know a non-random system was called "deterministic" before I came here), so I thought it might be a good idea to go ahead and define what these two systems are, and how they differ (In my opinion, anyways).
Deterministic models are systems in which the outcome is based on non-random numbers, whether it be comparing unit strength versus defense, or one player's auction bid against another's. This outcome may or may not be known to the players as they are in the process of determining it... Typically in the "unit strength versus defense" example, both factors are known to all players, so one may make an informed decision on whether or not an attack will strengthen one's position (or weaken the opponent's). This is sometimes also true in the auction example, if the bids are out loud, but there may also be secret bids, where the outcome is still not random, but the result is not known until everyone reveals their bids... Another example of the "unknown outcome" would be players selecting cards from their hand and playing them simultaneously... The outcome is determined by who played the "better" card, but neither player will know if his card is best until all the cards are shown.
Random systems, on the other hand, make use of some type of random number generator, whether it be dice, a spinner, drawing a random card, or any other system where the players do not have direct control over the outcome. I don't think there's too much need for examples here, since these are the types of systems we are exposed to most often.
With all of that out of the way, the discussion I'm hoping to have is on the merits and faults of both of these systems, which will hopefully help others to choose which type of system will best suit their next game.
As for deterministic models, I tend to feel that they put more emphasis on tactics (again, I'm thinking in mostly a combat-oriented game)... If you see your opponent making Cavalry, you know you'd better make some Pikemen and put them in the right spot to intercept. However, they can also take away (to some extent) the ability of a player who is lagging behind to catch up (the lead players will typically have more resources, and can more effectively counter the lagging players without harming their own position much), since there would be no "lucky rolls" to turn the tide of the battle.
Random models tend to favor luck over skill, though they differ in the degree to which they favor it. Games like Risk (while fun to play with the right group) could just as easily be played by rolling a hundred dice and seeing who got the most 6's (again, with the right group, alliances and other diplomatic factors can add more depth to the play; Since they aren't considered part of the rules, however, I'm looking past them for this example). This is due to there being only one type of unit, and no situational factors altering the rolls. A slightly more tactical random model would be that of Axis & Allies. Dice are still rolled to determine the outcome of battle, but each unit has its own "to hit" number, and the defending side typically has a higher chance to hit. This can essentially be boiled down to allowing players to "purchase" better rolls (the cheapest unit, Infantry, must roll a 1 to hit on the attack, while a more expensive unit, Tanks, hit on a roll of 3 or less). This gives the game the added facet of choosing between quality and quantity. A player might be able to fill up the board with his Infantry, but he'd never be able to go anyplace without buying some of the more expensive units to help on the attack.
To summarize, I feel that deterministic models typically favor tactical thinking (whoever makes the "best" moves will win), and random models run the gamut from simple luck games to games that attempt to equalize the balance between luck and skill.
Thoughts?
All right... I had to read through your post a few times to get everything straight, and there were a lot of good points in there...
I can agree with that partially, depending on the game situation... With a deterministic system, if you look at it from a single turn perspective, I agree that it's easy enough to see who will win any particular encounter... However, the point in such a game then becomes to put yourself in a position where your opponents will be unable to launch a successful attack against you, while you are simultaneously able to wear down their position.
Additionally, there can always be a hidden (but non-random) element so the outcome can't be predicted by the attacker. In this case, players might have some type of reserve points (numbered cards, chits, things like that) that they can commit to the battle depending on how important that particular encounter is (this would be fairly similar to secret auctions). So, there's still an element of risk, but no randomness.
If the system offers little or no way to get an advatage in combat AND a random combat resolution, then it's probably too based in luck for many strategy games.
This is exactly what I was trying to get across (and I hope I did) with the Risk vs Axis & Allies example... In Axis & Allies, you can spend more money to get a better chance at success, so the randomness of the rolls is tempered by the ability to put your money into fewer, but more successful, units.
I thought of another thing while reading this part... A big part of how random dice-based combat is depends on what percentage of the overall total the dice plays... Basically, the smaller the maximum dice roll is compared to the maximum level of modifiers (a d6 where the modifiers can get to +10, for example) the more a player will have a feeling of being able to control a large part of the outcome, while still having a bit of the tenseness of a random outcome.
This again would go back to the hidden (but non-random) elements I mentioned before... In your Tigris and Euphrates example, players had hidden tiles (drawn randomly) that would affect the outcome of combat... Depending on the rest of the gameplay, a mechanic like this could work with non-random draws (for example, starting with a certain amount of each color (to stay with the T&E example) and committing a particular amount based on how important you feel the battle is).