Banner

You are not logged in.

Text Size

    Hi.  It's me again -- that guy that complains about worker placement and drones on and on about how important "unpredictability" is in board games and why it matters to me.  I'd like to spend a moment focusing on that last one yet one more time.  Now, I am well aware that most of you are tired of the subject, but since I'm the one with the keyboard and you're the one with the monitor I'm going to pretend for just a moment that this is all about me and that I actually have some level of contDD Graham just before playing Niagararol, and that's apt because it's going to be at the heart of this article: it's about control.

    I haven't gotten a chance to get much gaming in during the past couple of months and more often than not when I sit down to write blog entries or an article it's a gaming moment that's driving the conversation.  But as "luck" would have it, two things did happen recently that pushed me to assemble my thoughts on the L-word.  One was a gaming session with my daughter which I'll get to in a moment.  The other was just a simple question from my buddy Mike, someone I've gamed with for a couple of years --

    "OK Einstein, just what is it about luck that's so damn important to you?"

    As is generally the case, I paused before speaking.  I like to choose my words carefully so that I can bring on an explanation that the listener can grok in short order.  But this time the pause was longer than usual as I struggled to find a starting point.  My thoughts on the subject had not yet fully coalesced, and Mike wasted no time filling in the gap.

    "Are you kidding?  You've been whining about this since . . . your birth, and here I give you a chance to just let it roll and you don't have anything prepared.  I mean I wore comfortable shoes and everything 'cause I figured I was going to be here a while."

    If Mike had asked me six months prior I likely would have rolled out the standard responses -- replayability, entertaining twists of fate, opportunities to go for a big win, the usual fare.  It suffices.  But I had come to realize that all of those are just shadows of the real issue.  They're side effects, pleasant symptoms of a bigger concept, that I had just begun to fathom.

    Fundamentally, and I know this is going to sound counter-intuitive, luck is about control.  As screwed up as it sounds, I've come to realize that unpredictable elements provide me with the opportunities I need to take ownership of my fate, regardless of how it turns out.  That control (or more precisely the struggle to establish it) is as vital an aspect as any in my enjoyment of a game, and once I figured that out my cravings for titles like Warriors of God and El Grande and Battlestar Galactica suddenly became much easier to understand.  They're games where you're on the edge of control.

    "This is me, these are mine" is a part of this -- you need placement in the game, something you can identify yourself with.  You need boundaries that defiine you.  But I've had to broaden it, to expand its scope beyond that of pawns or soldiers or dollars tucked under the edge of the game board.  It's not just about the physical presence of the game, it's about the path you take as the game executes, the journey.  That is as much a part of yourself as the pieces, and that journey is defined by your options and how you choose to use them.

    It is along this journey that luck gets the opportunity to exert its influence -- a varying wind that forces you to adjust your sails or to even change your heading.  At times it lifts you to your goal.  At times it blows squarely in your face, and I get arguments that this means you're not getting to play your game.  That's not true.  You are getting to play your game, you're just getting to play it in the presence of unpredictable forces and more often than not that's when skilled players really get the opportunity to shine.  Strategies need to be shorter in scope, more flexible, designed to include contingencies in the event something goes heavily against you.  This generally means that any preconceived plans you had when you sat down at the table are going to need to change, and on short notice.  That strategy guide you found on the Internet?  It will be woefully inadequate when the storm hits.  This is when seasoned gamers show their depth of knowledge.

    This observation isn't rocket science.  We do this everyday in our lives, avoiding the traffic jam or juggling the family schedule.  The way we handle adversity is a part of what makes us who we are.  It's the nature of a complex system.  At the boardgame table, were you the only one dealing with these influences you would be at a tremendous disadvantage.  The game would be "unfair."  But that's generally not the case.  Games designed for our level of play include luck in the form of global effects that all must manage or individual luck with enough occurrences that a relatively well-shaped result curve is generally the case for all players involved.  Some rolls are more critical than others, and that's fine; you should have contingencies for those as well.  But every player sits down to the table knowing they will have to manage the whole package that the little microcosm on the table throws at them, even if it means they have a bit of a tougher play than the others.  That's part of life too, and those that overcome greater obstacles end up that much tougher for it.  Hard luck games are where you learn, and where you earn respect.

    Now in tighter, more channeled games where unpredictability is diminished or completely removed, a problem arises that just gets my teeth grinding.  If there is no chatter in the machine, if there's no unpredictable element that shifts the play a bit, there is a distinct possiblity that another player may have an opportunity to take ownership of you.  If you make a mistake early in the match or don't understand the consequences of one of your actions (this is particularly true with a new player in a seasoned group, something that I specifically warn against with games like Puerto Rico) you may find yourself in a position that is unrecoverable not so much because of the inexperience or grievous mental error, but because the restricted set of options presented by the ruleset are fully-defined and measurable.  It's possible none of the limited pathways available to you are viable.  There's no calculated risk available to work with.  With fully-defined games it's possible that your best action is a least-worst option, an action where your optimal choice scores you at most one point less than your opponent.  You have a set of choices, but it just doesn't matter if all of them have a viable response or none of them are sufficiently bold to make a difference.  That tight little sixty-minute game becomes 45 minutes of you marking time, losing as slowly as possible with one eye on the duffel bag of games next to you.  When you've lost control, when you no longer have ownership of your own fate be it success or failure, the game is over for you.

    How about Chess?  No luck, but more possible moves than there are atoms in the sun.  You can replay it a thousand times, and heck, it's almost inevitable that your opponent is as stupid as you at it, so there's plenty of opportunities to come back from bad play!  Solution?  Indeed a game with a broad array of permutations simulates luck simply by being so damn big in scope.  Thirty years ago that was a pretty solid answer but very much less-so today.  The communications revolution has meant that programmed openings and end-games quickly become well understood by the global fanbase for any game, and even those chosen few are quickly optimized.  The permutations boil away to a very small set that are favored, and you're stuck with the same problem again.  Sag's rule -- if someone uses the phrase "multiple paths to victory" to describe a game, it likely means there's about three, and a good chance somebody at the table knows all of them.  Phllt.  That's a shame -- a game is about discovery, not regurgitating a series of steps you found in a strategy guide.  The easy solution is to stay off the Internet, but it's a pretty solid bet you won't -- you're using it right now.  It's a part of our life, and if it's not part of ours, it's probably part of one of they guys' that we play with.  Games that don't present a significant level of unpredictable outcome will become scripted in short order, and the tighter they are the quicker they'll reach that state.  The play, once again, is no longer yours.

    By removing everybody else's ability to maintain strict control of their game state, luck provides you with the ability to exert control over your own.  You get to take your fate into your own hands.  You get the ability to consider your own pathways to victory, regardless of how risky or how daunting, and decide for yourself what you choose to do.  You get to play your game.  That is what the L-word offers.

    And this isn't just about me.  The introduction of luck into a ruleset short circuits a host of other sins.  I've already discussed how Resignation evaporates in the presence of ownership and control.  But there's others -- Kingmaking evaporates.  Runaway Leader evaporates.  These flaws that eggheads pontificate about are fundamentally the children of strict control and predestination.  If we are empowered with an unpredictable playing field, if we can take a chance and hope for a lucky break regardless of how late in the game or how far behind we are, we get the chance to kick and scratch and claw for a shot at that win all the way until the last play of the game, and we will.  That's who we are -- anyone on this web site is looking for that epic comeback victory and we're not going to give it away if our head is still in the game on the final turn.

    As these concepts were brewing within me I got to see it in action in real life.  This was the second thing that happened to crystallize my thoughts.  

    I watched my twelve-year-old daughter's jaw drop open as her hit points drained from 100 to just 9 in a single blow.  It was the second turn of a game called Power Mage 54.  You haven't played it -- it's a self-published card game by a local guy and it's in the spirit of Bang.  Comic-book superhero characters, tried-and-true weapons, defenses, and these multiplier cards that make every weapon that's nasty in the game even worse.  The goal -- kill everyone else.  The artwork ain't Madureira but it's serviceable, all in all a fine purchase for seven U.S. dollars.

    In the face of such a bone-crushing twist of fate I was afraid my daughter was going to balk the game -- step away from the table because she was suddenly losing very badly.  This is a problem I've had with her in the past and for far less difference in the score.  But this was a public gaming session, and I had explained to her that you don't walk from a game with strangers and it doesn't matter how old you are.  She agreed, and now was her chance to show what that meant.  She was 9 very small points away from a truly stunning defeat.  For you or me this would be no big thing, but to a twelve-year-old girl who things come easy to . . .

    The game designer leaned in gave her the same advice I've given her a dozen times -- "don't panic, you may still have a shot at this" and she decided to keep her head in the game.  This was change.  Hearing the advice from someone other than Dad may have been part of it, but it may have just been time.

    And something strange happened.  The cards fell in a very odd way, such that one of the remaining three of us (me, my daughter, and a friend of hers) each got a hand of only one type of card.  I had weapons -- largely worthless without multipliers.  My daughter's friend had multipliers, completely worthless without weapons, and my daughter had heroes.  Heroes have some special abilities that allow them to react to attacks or make changes to your hand.  My daughter focused on dropping me first and succeeded.  Then, as she and her friend battled it out four and six points at a time, she slowly clawed her way out of the mess she was Delan Card from Power Mage 54in.  The designer was coaching, but it was her hand.  It was her options, her play.  Ownership.  What fate dealt her was her own, and she found a way to make it work.  In the final play of the game her hero bounced the damage aimed at her back onto her friend, and she won the game with three hit points to spare.

    I watched as she jumped out of her chair.  This wasn't elation; she wasn't getting up to do the woohoo dance.  She began walking circles, pacing, trying to manage the adrenaline in her system.  She had controlled it while the game was on but now that the moment was behind her she couldn't sit still, she had to move around to sluff off the tension.  It was like she had been rushed by a bear and survived.  

    Now most of you reading this would have been mildly happy with the win, or maybe pumped a fist in honor of the big finish, but this girl isn't a gamer.  She dabbles a bit, and isn't very comfortable with the concept of defeat in any part of her life.  Had the designer leaned over and said to her, "you're toast" or (even worse in my opinion) "you still have the card X in your hand you can box them out and trigger the end-game condition for the win" she wouldn't have given a damn about how things turned out.  She would have sat there and shrugged as the game played itself for her.  The fact that she needed to get a break, and that she needed to play her cards right to be in a position to capitalize on it if that break occurred, had to think on her feet and make it work, it gave her ownership.  Nothing was predetermined -- there were no promises.  But there was hope, she could play to win.

    That's what comes into the mix when luck is available to change up the play.  As the game comes to a close or you get farther behind you need to hope for bigger and bigger reversals of fortune, and for obvious reasons those become harder and harder to come by.  But they can occcur, and that keeps you focused on you, playing your game, tending to your fate, worrying about your position on the board.  

    And that's why we play, isn't it?

                Sag. 



Sagrilarus is a monthly columnist for Fortress: Ameritrash.

Click here for more board game articles by Sagrilarus.

Comments (32)add comment

Hatchling said:

Hatchling
...
Awesome exploration. This article gave me a shot of adrenaline. It really hit home and each point triggered a chain reaction of gaming memories.
October 06, 2009

mrmarcus said:

mrmarcus
...
*golf clap*

Well said.
October 06, 2009

Southernman said:

Southernman
...
We're all adrenaline junkies to some degree (except for euro gamers, they're just accountants) - looking for that experience that will hand us risk or uncertainty in a quantity that will invigorate ourselves.
Whether it's escaping some disaster in a boardgame or or some challenging outdoor activity, we like the feeling.
October 06, 2009

Dr_Mabuse said:

Dr. Mabuse
...
I want that card game, Sag. Hook me up man!

Thanks for the article.
October 06, 2009

clockwirk said:

clockwirk
...
Great article. I agree with all of the points you made, and yet I can't help feeling that if I was your daughters opponent in that game I would have been very frustrated that the stellar play that crippled your daughter initially was completely undercut by the luck of the draw. I 'spose that's the "Agony of Defeat" part.
October 06, 2009

blarknob said:

blarknob
...
This is one of the best articles I've read on the fort. Luck giving you control of your fate, and recognizing what you need to do to capitalize on the slim chance you have of winning is exactly why I play these games.

It is also why the most rewarding games to me are the ones where each player is actively playing to win. It means you not only have to understand your game and tend to your own fate but you also have to realize what slim chance your opponent is holding out for and how you can make it even slimmer smilies/smiley.gif
This is all made even better with secret information and imperfect data in games so that each player is playing with a different part of the picture. Players keep playing and feel in control if the part of the game they can see gives them a chance even if they don't actually have a chance of winning because of information they don't have access to.
October 06, 2009

waddball said:

waddball
...
The specifics of the implementation are still what matters. Luck exacerbates kingmaking as much as bypasses it (and generally, the longer the shot, the more likely the perception of kingmaking when you fail). Luck or not, runaway leaders are generally the result of a positive feedback loop.

That said, I agree with the desire to avoid these problems, and luck is often a better solution than rigid limits on interaction or deterministic rubberbanding. But it's horses for courses, right? I like an epic comeback, no doubt, but more than that, I like to feel that my choices mattered. It's hard finding that balance.
October 06, 2009

Stephen Avery said:

Stephen Avery
...
Luck is my best skill smilies/cheesy.gif

Now most of you reading this would have been mildly happy with the win, or maybe pumped a fist in honor of the big finish

Typically I throw the cards in the face of my opponents, jump on the table and yel "In YER FACE! In YER FACE!!" while doing pelvic thrusts. Its my signature winning move.

Stephen"InyerFACE"Avery
October 06, 2009

scissors said:

scissors
...
I have to agree with Blarknob about this being one fo the best articles ever on F:AT. It hit everything I like about playing games and the reasoning behind why I play certain types of games. Who doesn't love supposedly insurmountable odds and the "come back" (a great feature of LNOE, for instance).

Last week, four of us (my wife, myself, and two friends were playing Pirate's Cove - yeah I know, not the deepest of games, but this session was perfect). I got off to a huge lead early, managing to second guess others and avoid them and profit - although it was obvious they would catch up eventually and even whip my butt a few times. In the second to last round my wife, who until then was seemingly not even a contender, sneakily came out of nowhere, dropping treasure crates on the isalnd but above all MONEY she'd been hoarding that NOBODY noticed, worth a fuckload of points. Then even our friend Kiki inched past by a couple spots. I was left in 3rd spot with only one choice: to head to Treasure Island on the 12th round to try and take on Blackbeard (a pretty tough cookie). And the dice always roll weird in this game, usually too few hits. Anyhow, went toe to toe with the pirate ship (with that 6 die parrot helping tho) -- and had to 'shout' at the dice to do their godamn job (Samuel L. Jackson style, I like to think)... and... they did! I think BB needs eight hits and I nailed seven in prolonged battle... before he, ah, sunk me. Had I converted the fame points and crates I had with me it would have sealed the win. But it was a blast smilies/tongue.gif
October 06, 2009

metalface13 said:

metalface13
...
Excellent article, Sag.

I've been playing Magic on XBLA a lot lately, and it has got me appreciating how much I like Magic at its core. It's having to deal with the luck of the draw, shifting your strategy as the game progresses to work out a win. Sometimes, yeah, the wind of fate totally blows in your face and you draw nothing but lands the entire game, sometimes that wind is at your back as you draw the perfect cards. But most of the time it's figuring out how to win with what you got.

And you are exactly right, it is the presence of luck that makes you feel like you can control your own fate in a game.
October 06, 2009

Merkles said:

Merkles
...
Great article, Sag.

Also, if you suck at remembering-all-the-information-to-win strategy ( like me), then luck mitigates one's tendency to opt for the crazy, screwball strategy. Of course, there's still people that I'll play with--academics--that will come up with mathematical equations to figure out optimal play for Axis and Allies even with the use of dice. Sigh.

This is one reason I love Combat Commander: Europe. It has that mix of luck and control and living on the edge...it is why I love the game.
October 06, 2009

jeb said:

jeb
...
Totally cool stories, Sag, and a point well made. A game is made in the balance between skill and luck. BINGO is an activity, there's no game there. CHECKERS/DRAUGHTS against Chinook is much the same. Games of perfect information against human opponents are still games--the luck is in whether you or your opponent will blunder.

To metalface13's point, MAGIC:THE GATHERING is a profound intersection of skill and luck. Consider a game of M:tG in a sealed format (ie, you are given unopened product with which to build your deck). LUCK: What cards did you get in your packs? SKILL: Can you build an effective deck from them? LUCK: Will you draw what you need? SKILL: Will you play what you've drawn optimally?

ps. get some extras of that crazy game and stick 'em in the math trade.
October 06, 2009

maka said:

maka
...
Great Article and great story smilies/cheesy.gif
October 06, 2009

Michael Barnes said:

Michael Barnes
...
As screwed up as it sounds, I've come to realize that unpredictable elements provide me with the opportunities I need to take ownership of my fate, regardless of how it turns out.

This is one of the best statements about luck in games I've ever read- and it's one that totally undermines the usual hemming and hawing that comes from the anti-luck crowd.

More than this though, I'd say that luck is actually what generates variable tactical and strategic situations and that produces a much more organic, living game than is even possible in highly processional, structured games. Mad Malthus mentioned something similar to this but he was talking about player interaction in DUNE, but I think it applies to luck as well- it becomes a _creative_, _generative_ element in design. The idea that luck is a "design flaw" or other demerit as perpetuated by some hobbyists is one of the greatest harms ever done to game design.

Luck adds life. It's what makes games alive, because luck and fate are key components in life itself. Replace that with stricture and order and the question becomes, at what point are you "playing" and at what point are you "enacting"?
October 06, 2009

Jur said:

Jur
...
great article!
October 06, 2009

KingPut said:

KingPut
...
I'm going to start a list of great Saggisms:

That tight little sixty-minute game becomes 45 minutes of you marking time, losing as slowly as possible with one eye on the duffel bag of games next to you. - me playing Euros

Sag's rule -- if someone uses the phrase "multiple paths to victory" to describe a game, it likely means there's about three, and a good chance somebody at the table knows all of them.

Hearing the advice from someone other than Dad may have been part of it
October 06, 2009

Mr Skeletor said:

Mr Skeletor
...
I divide the types of ‘luck’ into three categories:
Randomness
Chance (or Risk Management)
Chaos (or Fate)

Randomness is where there is no control at all. I can’t control the event happening, and I can’t control what happens afterwards. Snakes and ladders is an example of pure randomness – I have no influence whatsoever on landing on a space with a snake, nor once I have landed on it can I do anything about it. I have utterly no control over what happens to me. Good game design will minimise randomness as much as possible.

Chance / Risk Management is where I can stack the odds before losing control. The ‘control’ comes before the event. I can attack with my army now and pray for a great die roll, or I can strengthen my forces for a turn so as to attack and win with only a mediocre die roll. The reason I prefer Runebound over Talisman is that it has a greater control over luck. Players can either press their luck and attack creatures they aren’t really ready for hoping fortune to smile on them and get big rewards or attack weaker creatures at less risk but for smaller reward. Risk vs Reward. Guts vs caution. Chance is what good Ameritrash Design is all about.

Chaos / Fate is the opposite of chance. This is where I have no control of the event occurring but am forced to react to it. Event cards are a typical example of this, something happens this turn which all players now have to plan around. This is probably my favourite type of luck, I’m a reactive player who enjoys making the best of what he is dealt. This is why in games with variable characters / starting forces I never choose one, rather I prefer to get one randomly and play with that. Sometimes in games where you can choose upgrade cards like starcraft or chaos in the old world I’ll even randomly choose one of those and attempt to build a strategy around that. Chaos is necessary to keep a game from developing scripted strategies and keeping replayability high. It’s all about using what fate has granted you, good or bad, to your advantage.

Games will normally use all 3 kinds of luck to different degrees. Poker for example begins with Chaos (I can’t control my initial hand I’m dealt, but I have control over folding or how much to risk with it) then switches to Chance with the card discards (I can choose what cards I want to get rid of, and if I how much money I am willing to risk on my hand. Once the cards are shown, I have no more influence.)
October 07, 2009

mikoyan said:

mikoyan
...
I like Power Grid but one of the reasons I don't like it is because if you find yourself behind in a game even with the mechanisms that handicap the leader, there really isn't much of a chance to come back. And when I say behind, I mean behind and not behind because you're trying to game the mechanism in the game that allows you to buy supplies first. It seems to be the same way with many of the other Euros. About the only one that isn't bad is Puerto Rico but only because the victory points are hidden. If you've been paying attention, you know you're hopelessly behind. These games really don't have any catch up mechanisms where you can do the equivalent of putting your last dollar on 22 and having Rick tell the table guy to give you the win.

I think with luck, I do like the games where you have ways to mitigate your luck. Wargames are a good example of this. You can set up your forces so that you are attacking in ideal conditions and your defender is off balance. However, there is always that slight chance they can pull one off. These are also the games where you find yourself in an untenable position but there is the hope the right card or something will come up.

October 07, 2009

scissors said:

scissors
...
I love it when a game throws you a curveball forcing you to ratchet up your strategy. And, like Barnes says, it's what keeps the game alive and fresh. Such moments also give others a chance to recover from mistakes or utilise the unexpected to their advantage, while making sense in terms of the narrative (the winter dudes attacking every once in while in AGoT, say). Not some artificially-implemented mechanism designed to keep everyone in the game. Sometimes, no matter how well you play, you'll get screwed (espcially if you're Nurgle in CitOW - somebody tell me how to stay shy of Korne when all the populous provinces are in the middle of the board where Khorne is most damn comfortable!!!). I haven't tried the more popular worker-placement games like Puerto Rico or Cuba (and a part of me wants to try just because sometimes I feel like building something instead of plotting and beating someone up, if not often), but I think I would miss some of the chaos or luck. For me, luck stimulates imagination especially when it comes to narrative: her overwhelming Ringwraith-led army crummbles against your valaint few guarding Minas Tirith in WotR, hell, that makes the imagination soar (and in this case also has the benefit of closely resembling an existing story, which can add to the cool factor). You can increase your odds even with limited resources by just a slight little bit, but when a longshot pays off, it's great. WotR: you play a card to bring in one last captain to guard Minas Tirith, and wouldn't you know it he's the last guy standing at the end of the attack. Love that stuff. Sorry, I can't help but get carried away!
October 07, 2009

Southernman said:

Southernman
...
Luck was not on my side last night playing Buffy - I was evil and just could not throw hits no matter how many dice I had, I slunk off in embarrassment after a resounding loss that had Willow was doing more damage on The Master than I/he was doing on Buffy at the end.
October 07, 2009

Sagrilarus said:

Sagrilarus
...

Thank you all for the kind wods.
October 08, 2009

Aarontu said:

Aarontu
...
That was a great article!

A great explanation as to why some luck and uncertainty are so great in games. smilies/smiley.gif
October 08, 2009

Notahandle said:

Notahandle
...
Excellent, very well articulated with great anecdotes.
October 08, 2009

Zimeon said:

Zimeon
...
Wonderfully stated. As Skeletor stated, there are different types of luck-factors, some of which are less interesting (although I tend to like even the randomness in Dungeon Quest), but the unpredictability of what will happen is very important for the game to live each time. It may be a small factor or a bigger one, but it needs to be there, or the game will leave you with - as you state - with no control.

If find, though, that not all problems you noted are actually mitigated with luck. The runaway leader syndrome with Roborally is actually rather much there, even though the luck factor is rather heavy there.
November 02, 2009

eikka said:

eikka
...
Great post! You made me register to comment. While I was thinking about the luck in games in 2008, I ended up writing about it like this at TOS:

http://tinyurl.com/ydbj9dq

It was my first list and sunk into the unknown quickly but it was the manifest of my expectations on ideal gaming experience.

What makes a rich game experience to emerge is the proper balance between control, chaos and chance to succeed at any game state and position on the learning curve. Mix that with healthy dose of thematic ingredients, stir and let stand for desired thickness... Voilà!
November 30, 2009

snikolenko said:

snikolenko
...
By concentrating on the comeback, you completely forgot about the other guy.

When you have been struggling for the whole game (sometimes for hours) to put yourself in a favourable position and take control of the game, it is very frustrating to be overcome by luck, not by skill or by your own mistake. "Epic comebacks" are as much about losing control as they are about acquiring it. Thermodynamics, you know.
January 23, 2010

snikolenko said:

snikolenko
...
P.S. Here's an example of frustration as a result of randomly losing control: this web site replaced my colon/bracket combination with some horrid image which I despise. I had no way to know it in advance, and now I have no way to even remove the beastly thing entirely. I'm angry and frustrated.
January 23, 2010

Mad Dog said:

Mad Dog
...
now I have no way to even remove the beastly thing entirely.


Apparently that's not true. The question now becomes how you removed the smilies/smiley.gif. Even though it was done by an outside force it happened because you wanted it to. Was it chance that you got what you wanted or did you posting a complaint set into motion a chain of events that led to a desired outcome? I'd say you took the hand that was dealt you (i.e. all your options of how to deal with it) and made the right selection. Then again I may be just talking bullshit as usual.
January 23, 2010

ubarose said:

ubarose
...
The conversion of certain punctuation marks into emoticons isn't luck. They are rules. You simply don't know all the rules. People who don't know or remember all the rules of a game, and who don't understand entirely how they all interact with one another, or know how to use them to their advantage often complain about a game being having too much luck and randomness.
January 23, 2010

Sagrilarus said:

Sagrilarus
...
When you have been struggling for the whole game (sometimes for hours) to put yourself in a favourable position and take control of the game, it is very frustrating to be overcome by luck, not by skill or by your own mistake. "Epic comebacks" are as much about losing control as they are about acquiring it. Thermodynamics, you know.


Luck is a fickle thing. In the example I cited above my daughter got stomped on in the first play of the game by a truly bad piece of luck. The initial deal of cards was well beyond her control or that of her opponent. Over time the pendulum swung back, though slowly, and what remained was for her to keep her head (and heart) in the game to make use of what became available to her. Everyone has good and bad patches; you need to survive the bad and thrive in the good.

In 2001 the Seattle Mariners won 116 games, a stellar performance. That left 46 losses to digest, but that's the nature of baseball. Truly superior play does not guarantee success in any given game, and anyone associated with the game is comfortable with that. What results is every fan understanding that any one game ain't over until it's over -- there's an edge to the play because there's no guarantees.

You have to come to the table with an appropriate understanding of the lay of the land. Each game presents a different mix and it's valuable to know what's in store before you play. For me, games that marginalize luck tend to marginalize my enjoyment. I don't like it to be overpowering, but when it's removed or even mostly removed the play becomes a computer algorithm where I get to play the part of a cog in the machine. Cogs lead miserable lives.

S.
January 23, 2010

snikolenko said:

snikolenko
...
Sagrilarus, I completely agree with what you have said. You have to manage your luck and try to make the best of what chances you got. I also didn't say that frustration is a very bad thing and is to be avoided at all costs. Frustration is a natural companion to competition. I just said that while you discuss the positives of "epic comebacks", you shouldn't forget the negatives. When lady luck turns your way in a game, it means that she has turned her ass to somebody else (unless you're playing co-op, of course).

Now, that said, I still think that there is a limit for this natural companionship. In baseball, you have the season to level your luck out (being Russian, I don't know a thing about baseball, but you said there are >150 games there). This effect is even more prominent in, say, poker: sure, your pair of aces got beat, but a hand takes a few seconds, and you know you've made the right choice to go all-in with AA, so you mentally give yourself some "Sklunsky bucks" and stay happy.

However, with boardgames you almost never have that long distance to even luck out. Long boardgames don't get played a hundred times. If they have a substantial amount of luck in the endgame, it just becomes not emotionally worth it to learn to play well. If you learn, you win ten times out of the fifteen you play, and if you don't, you win five times, and each time you win, you get more satisfaction because it has been an "epic comeback"; what's the point of learning, then? That's just my opinion, of course.

P.S. About the smileys: it's a good thing that sometimes prayers get answered. Thank you, the gods of Fortress Ameritrash! However, it seldom works this way with luck in real life.
January 24, 2010

Sagrilarus said:

Sagrilarus
...

The amount of luck present in the play does indeed need to be mitigated. In shorter games the effect of luck needs to be smaller to not tip the scales uncontrollably. Part of the nature of a tight euro is to keep playtime short, so luck is not favored in those games. Games that have more time to play out or have a significant number of luck-based events provide a leveling effect.

But -- managing the luck becomes an integral factor in the play. Unpredictability forces you out of the rut, forces you to roll with the punches, forces you to find ways to manufacture hard-earned points when they aren't falling in your lap. That's exceptionally rewarding to me. Some don't care for it and I suppose that's their business, but to me gaming is about thinking, and if you're memorizing moves in advance it's just legwork, a mechanical victory.

Thanks for reading.

S.

January 25, 2010

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Articles - Analysis

             |