I’ve seen this idea about output randomness before, but I’ve never been particularly sympathetic.
Famously the game that the article talks about, chess, has basically calcified over time due in large part to it’s deterministic nature. I find it unlikely that as many games would end in draws if piece moves were somehow randomised.
While input randomness is definitely positive, output randomness allows games to maneuver into interesting tactical spaces that would never be reached in optimal deterministic play, and forces players to think about interesting equilibrium conditions. There’s a reason that despite being an incredibly simple game, poker is still fun.
Edit:
I also reject the idea of input vs output randomness being that meaningful a distinction. In one sense you can view mahjong as being both a perfectly input or output random game, in reality I don’t think it’s either since they’re not actually different.
It’s a spectrum, but saying that the distinction isn’t meaningful? It’s very meaningful to me. The most popular way to randomize chess is chess960, which fits exactly the definition of input randomness: randomness that happens before players choose actions, and informs their choice of actions. Whereas for the output randomness side, the most typical example is roulette: take a shot and get a dopamine rush if the RNG comes out in your favor.
I’m not denying that roulette is fun for a lot of people. But I prefer the chess960 kind of fun to the roulette kind of fun, both as a player and as a developer.
I’ve seen this idea about output randomness before, but I’ve never been particularly sympathetic.
Famously the game that the article talks about, chess, has basically calcified over time due in large part to it’s deterministic nature. I find it unlikely that as many games would end in draws if piece moves were somehow randomised.
While input randomness is definitely positive, output randomness allows games to maneuver into interesting tactical spaces that would never be reached in optimal deterministic play, and forces players to think about interesting equilibrium conditions. There’s a reason that despite being an incredibly simple game, poker is still fun.
Edit:
I also reject the idea of input vs output randomness being that meaningful a distinction. In one sense you can view mahjong as being both a perfectly input or output random game, in reality I don’t think it’s either since they’re not actually different.
It’s a spectrum, but saying that the distinction isn’t meaningful? It’s very meaningful to me. The most popular way to randomize chess is chess960, which fits exactly the definition of input randomness: randomness that happens before players choose actions, and informs their choice of actions. Whereas for the output randomness side, the most typical example is roulette: take a shot and get a dopamine rush if the RNG comes out in your favor.
I’m not denying that roulette is fun for a lot of people. But I prefer the chess960 kind of fun to the roulette kind of fun, both as a player and as a developer.