"Output randomness is just input randomness for the next turn." - Game designer and blogger
DanC of the Lost Garden has said this to me numerous times in response to my positions. Basically he's arguing that there is no actual difference between output randomness and input randomness.
This position has two major flaws. One is that it seems unaware of the possibility of a larger strategic picture that could be providing tons of complexity effectiveness that otherwise you're losing out on.
The other major flaw is that
even if it's actually input randomness for the next turn, that's what I call "unfair input randomness". It's up so close in your face that you don't have time to respond to it. You now have a significantly different game state than you did a second ago, and there's no discernible reason for it. On some games, you might play optimally, but get put into this position and lose anyway. On other games, you
don't get put into that position because the dice rolls go your way.
Input randomness, when put up close enough to the player so that he can't plan around it, is basically output randomness. Feedback is being artificially delayed.
Ironically, I agree with Dan's sentiment that there's no significant difference between output randomness and input-randomness-for-the-next-turn, although I think they're equally
bad.
To really drive the point home, imagine a scenario where you have a character who has a “to-hit” dice roll against a tough monster. He swings, and he
misses! Well, that’s ok, it’s just input randomness for the next turn, after all! He tries to attack again, and misses
again! At this point, you may already have lost, and it wasn’t because of any decision you made.
"Some games need output randomness to work."
If you were to just rip the dice rolls out of Risk, it definitely
wouldn't work.
This simply means that they are shallow games. It's understandable, because creating a coherent system that is deep is very, very hard to do. However, this is not a defense of randomness; more an indication of a weak design.
“If there’s randomness, then it’s all about risk management."
A favorite of poker players. The idea behind this argument is that having random elements adds a "factoring in your odds" element to the game. You have to weigh the odds of outcome A happening against the odds of outcome B against the benefit of outcome A and the benefit of outcome B, and that makes games more interesting. Essentially, it's combining odds and valuation.
This kind of risk management is not unique to random games. In any game that you haven't solved, really
every move you make is to some degree a risk that you must manage. In chess, there could be two major strategies - strategy A and strategy B. You might figure that A is more likely to
work than B, but B has a bigger payoff than A, for instance. Randomness isn't necessary.
As to the "calculating odds" aspect of this, determining odds is never interesting, especially not when you're talking about something like counting cards in poker. Calculating odds in a deterministic system might be harder to do, but it would certainly be far more interesting due to all of the variables at play in a good, dynamic strategy game.
"Randomness doesn't matter - just do the best you can!"
The argument goes something like, "if you care about randomness, you care too much about winning. Just have fun!"
This argument is not actually a defense of randomness in strategy games; rather, it is a defense of randomness in
toys. Strategy games have a win/loss condition. If you are telling us to ignore that in
FTL, then you are saying that
FTL is a toy and that's why randomness is OK.
"Players with a wider skill range can compete against each other."
If a grandmaster and a newbie play chess against each other, the result won't be interesting or fulfilling for either party. That much is true! This argument suggests that the answer to that is to throw in some randomness.
Of course, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You've now severely damaged your game for the sake of presenting people with the illusion of more-similar skill levels. The real answer to this problem is good matchmaking.
"Randomness makes a game more like real life."
To quickly counter this argument, let's simply assume that there is a set of values for strategy games which we can separate from the set of values for a simulator.
"Games with randomness still have skill to them!"
True, and I haven't argued otherwise. The issue is that on a practical level, you will be able to actually explore less of that space in your lifetime, since so many of the games are essentially wasted on false random outcomes.
Still, it would be fun for the Maya to play with the proposed doomsday clock (which is an idea I love, BTW) like Tamar does with golden ages.
