I've been having a discussion in the design of a forum game. Fourteen players participate in teams of two and submits actions every day. The goal is to eliminate the other teams with your unique abilities. Essentially, this is a strategy game. Because of the nature of the game, every action is very important can be absolutely vital in affecting the game state. We currently have a disagreement. There are many who want to add chance-based elements to the game (such as criticals, evasion, stuns, etc.). I argued that it would be a bad idea to potentially allow chance to decide important outcomes. I feel that it would not be satisfying to lose because of a lucky roll and I would not feel satisfied if I won because of a critical. What are your opinions on this matter? What are some additional arguments I can use to convince them? Is probability even necessary in a game? Does it enhance its quality or enjoyment? In what conditions would it be acceptable to introduce probability based elements?

I think you'll probably find opinions of players just as split as opinions of developers. Personally, I believe having some element of luck is preferable, because it balances the playing field between teams with different levels of experience. Luck lets players take risks with potentially big payoffs that are probably less likely to work in a rigidly defined environment.

It can be tough to design and balance the game with those elements, though. For example: Does a critical have a 1.25x multiplier or 3x? Can you have partial evades? Are all stuns for one turn, or do they depend on the situation?

I guess it also depends on how deep the game is as it stands, though. In general, you want to prevent players from becoming too good too quickly, and luck can help in that regard. But if it's already deep enough, you might not need luck. Think about chess - there isn't any luck, but a better player can still lose if he misses what his opponent is doing. Be careful though - strategy game players do tend to appreciate depth, but D&D-level depth might turn away more players than it will attract; too shallow and it will get boring quickly.

Hope this helps, good luck!

Most games can't get away with being entirely deterministic. Deterministic games are vulnerable to being "solved" -- or at least, to having dominant strategies developed for them. Depending on how well you write your game, this is more or less easy to do; Go is pretty resilient, for example. But it's still often possible.

What you don't want is for chance to dominate the gameplay. Instead, you can let chance create the opportunity for more interesting decisions. Let's take the example of a critical hit, for example. Normally, players will know roughly how much damage they can expect to take in a given round, based on the opponents they are facing and their own defense and hitpoints. Without critical hits, players can, with sufficient knowledge and calculation, determine precisely if they will be "safe" for the next round. This can turn combat into a formality of sorts: "I'm just whittling down your hitpoints so you'll be forced to withdraw in 4 turns, at which point we'll bring our blastmage into play." This kind of play can appeal to the meticulous planner, but it can also end up being rather dull if strategies degenerate.

Critical hits can throw a monkey wrench into this by letting a player suddenly deal more damage than expected. Now you can't calculate perfectly if you are safe for a round -- you probably will be, but you might not. Are you willing to take the gamble? It's a calculated risk. If it goes in your favor, then you get another round of holding their fighters off for your team to press the advantage. If it doesn't, then you've been knocked out of the game. This can add tension, since your safety is no longer guaranteed.

I'm not saying that you should, as a matter of course, include randomness. Plenty of games don't. But those games tend to be significantly harder to balance than ones that do include some element of randomness (even if the games with randomness aren't dominated by it). And games with randomness are not inherently bad. Speaking in the context of board and card games, personally, I tend to prefer games that have a moderate random element, and I only very rarely feel that I lost specifically because of bad luck.

I shall give you one example, and one link.

First, the example: say I'm playing a game, and both myself and my NPC foe deal 2 damage points per round. We both have 2 health remaining, and it's my turn to move. In a game without chance, I attack, I deal 2 damage, the foe is vanquished - there is no meaningful decision to make here. But imagine a game including chance, where instead of dealing 2 damage per attack, I deal 1 to 3 damage per attack, with an average of 2. Suddenly the game takes on a new dimension - I can no longer guarantee that attacking this turn will win or that I will survive my foe's next turn. Therefore the choice becomes significant and my short term tactics are relevant. Retreat may be the more advisable approach, but it will depend on the context (do I control other playing pieces? do I need to win this turn? is death of my character important to the outcome or not? is it worth dealing 1 point of damage to this foe even if I die?) Humans are notoriously poor at risk estimation, but this gives tacticians another dimension in which to improve their skill with the game.

Second, the link: 'Randomness: Blight or Bane?'

I'd say not included chance. Luck base roles are good for some things. But generally combat in games is pretty deterministic as the luck roles even out over time. If takes 3 shots instead of 2 to kill an enemy 1 in 10 times that’s doesn’t really add any depth.

If you’ve got a deep and rich complex combat system with say injuries instead of hp, and variation on weapon results than luck could have a massive impact.

There was a really great article posted at Wizards.com some time ago talking about randomness in games.

Let me see if I can find it, here it is:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/37

Even if you don't play Magic: The Gathering, the basic concepts are easy to grasp. It's a great read I highly recommend it.

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth But generally combat in games is pretty deterministic as the luck roles even out over time.

But the key is that you can't rely on this. I once successfully defended a territory in Risk containing 2 armies from an invader with 40+ armies - it is a feat I will probably never manage to duplicate, but it turned the tide and allowed me to win that game…

Does it add anything to the game? Sure - I was able to turn around a dire situation which would have been completely un-winnable in a chance-free game.

I just wanted to add this article on Testosterone and male competition from Dan Cook's site:

http://lostgarden.com/2009/11/testosterone-and-competitive-play.html

It's an interesting read that is related to this topic.

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder Quote: Original post by TechnoGoth But generally combat in games is pretty deterministic as the luck roles even out over time. But the key is that you can't rely on this. I once successfully defended a territory in Risk containing 2 armies from an invader with 40+ armies - it is a feat I will probably never manage to duplicate, but it turned the tide and allowed me to win that game… Does it add anything to the game? Sure - I was able to turn around a dire situation which would have been completely un-winnable in a chance-free game.

How much you can rely on luck would depend entirely on how the randomness is applied as part of the game rules. Risk for instance a great example of where the randomness has a massive tactical impact. Because the rules limit the number of combatants and defence wins in ties the game gives them a distinct advantage.

Now if we change the rules slightly so you roll 1 die per troop and the defender kills the attacker for each 4+ they roll and the attacker kills 1 defender for each 5+ they roll than the impact of the randomness decrease significantly the more troops that are involved.

In both versions random chance will have an impact but in the second the impact of the randomness is significantly less.

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth How much you can rely on luck would depend entirely on how the randomness is applied as part of the game rules. Risk for instance a great example of where the randomness has a massive tactical impact. Because the rules limit the number of combatants and defence wins in ties the game gives them a distinct advantage. Now if we change the rules slightly so you roll 1 die per troop and the defender kills the attacker for each 4+ they roll and the attacker kills 1 defender for each 5+ they roll than the impact of the randomness decrease significantly the more troops that are involved. In both versions random chance will have an impact but in the second the impact of the randomness is significantly less.

Yes, but at some point Risk ceases to be interesting. Winning is just a matter of generating more armies than your opponents, and moving them to the front lines faster. Further, dominant strategies can be developed (i.e. take Asia, with its massive production, in the early stages).

Chance also (particularly in strategic/tactical games) mimics a number of phenomena in the real world that we can't account for in the game rules. In Risk, the random chance accounts for variation in terrain, defensive structures, training, leadership, etc. Critical hits in an RPG account for chinks in player's armour, lapses of concentration, slippery floors, etc.