That Random Element Again

I know I've discussed this before, but it's time to talk about randomness again.

Every game has at least some random element. Every game.  Yes, even chess. Sometimes that random element is resolved before play starts.  In chess, it comes down to "Which player will take white and thus play first?"  Because it does make a difference.

And I don't hate the random element.  I really don't.

I'll often say that a game is "too random," when discussing it with friends - that just means that (for me), there is too much luck and not enough skill in play.

I like games where - over the long term - skill will trump luck.

I actually enjoy Risk once in a while (although there are a ton of better variants like Castle Risk or Risk Europe or even Risk Legacy).  There is a skill component there - knowing when and where to push or reinforce is huge.

For the record: My wife is significantly better at the game than I am. Regardless of version.

I absolutely love Empires in Arms, too. It's a fantastic game. If you have the time and a group invested in playing.

In both cases, though, my fondest memories aren't "and then I outmaneuvered him!" but "And then the dice did this crazy thing!"

Like that one troop in Kamchatka who successfully defended the province from forty-seven attackers that one time and almost cost Steve the game because he refused to stop pushing.

Or when my Turkish Feudal Corps managed to break the morale of the attacking British army.  Yes, part of that was choosing tactics well, but if the dice had been even a little bit different, I'd have been slaughtered.

And I think that's part of why I don't object to a degree of randomness.

The skill factor in a game keeps me coming back so that I can improve. There is a reward for repeated play (above and beyond 'getting to play games with my friends'): Improved skill, which leads to more wins down the road.

But skill doesn't always make for good stories. Or even interesting stories. When two opponents are well-matched, skill-based games either become stalemates or they get very swingy. Stalemates are dull to watch. So are games where the last player to take a turn is always the one in the lead, because "Who's winning?" should never be the same question as "Whose turn is it?" And that ... happens.

At the same time, games that are 100% pure luck with no skill will occasionally have those fun stories. Like the game of Fluxx that ended after a turn because the starting player had a Goal, both Keepers for that Goal, and a "Play All" card in their opening hand.

Side note: Best game of Fluxx ever. I never even had to take a turn.

I've played some really good games, lately.  Over the next few posts (which could be weeks or even months at my current rate of posting), I'm going to talk about some of the games I've played and how they balance luck and skill. And why I think it's well (or poorly) balanced in that regard. I'm not only going to talk about the luck/skill balance, mind you, because there is so much more to a game than that.