This is a typical example of the difference between “input randomness” (randomness informing the player’s action, e.g. random map generation) and “output randomness” (randomness injected between the player’s action and the result, e.g. chance to hit), and why some people say output randomness should be avoided in game design.
I find it confusing that the linked article claims that “output randomness does not belong in a strategy game”. Strategy games, originally, were intended to mimic warfare, where there is a significant amount of “output randomness” due to what Clausewitz called “friction”. The purpose of injecting randomness via dice rolls is to simulate that friction. Sometimes the weaker unit makes a heroic last stand and drives off a force many times more powerful than it.
In fact, one of my critiques of most “strategy” games is that they don’t have enough randomness. Where are the units getting lost? Or orders being misunderstood or deliberately disobeyed?
Well, I’d actually agree with the stronger statement: output randomness sucks in other game genres too. How about we make Mario jump a random height, or make Tetris blocks randomly fail to clear a line, or make the solution to a Myst or Witness puzzle randomly not work? Nobody’s talking about “banning” output randomness, it’s a free market after all, but I don’t see much use for it. None of my favorite games rely on it much, and where they do, I’d rather they didn’t.
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.
This is a typical example of the difference between “input randomness” (randomness informing the player’s action, e.g. random map generation) and “output randomness” (randomness injected between the player’s action and the result, e.g. chance to hit), and why some people say output randomness should be avoided in game design.
I find it confusing that the linked article claims that “output randomness does not belong in a strategy game”. Strategy games, originally, were intended to mimic warfare, where there is a significant amount of “output randomness” due to what Clausewitz called “friction”. The purpose of injecting randomness via dice rolls is to simulate that friction. Sometimes the weaker unit makes a heroic last stand and drives off a force many times more powerful than it.
In fact, one of my critiques of most “strategy” games is that they don’t have enough randomness. Where are the units getting lost? Or orders being misunderstood or deliberately disobeyed?
In a strategy game, he says, I should note for clarity. (It’d be pretty absurd to want to ban ‘output randomness’ in general, of course.)
Well, I’d actually agree with the stronger statement: output randomness sucks in other game genres too. How about we make Mario jump a random height, or make Tetris blocks randomly fail to clear a line, or make the solution to a Myst or Witness puzzle randomly not work? Nobody’s talking about “banning” output randomness, it’s a free market after all, but I don’t see much use for it. None of my favorite games rely on it much, and where they do, I’d rather they didn’t.
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.