Randomness

And by that, I don't mind Monkey Cheese kind of stuff, just in order to clarify things from the get go. Now, a lot of people might have realised that randomness is not something I particularly enjoy within a game, but I don't think that statement is actually correct: randomness can be an important, even crucial element within games and without it many games that I play and enjoy today would not be anywhere near as enjoyable as they are. The crucial element is that randomness needs to be managed through the proper construction of rules in order to allow it to supplement the game rather than completely supplant every aspect of the game. It's a difficult balance to find and there are many, many games out there that instead of working out this balance just replace every mechanical resolution within the game with randomness since they are unable (or unwilling) to find alternatives. One example that nowadays I find almost inexcusable is the use of X+ to hit systems (i.e. systems in which you need to roll a certain number or above in order to perform an action/hit a monster/etc). We have been using such combat resolutions systems for a very long time now and superficially they are a very easy way to work out combat resolution. Unfortunately, the modularity of this  system is also it's downfall: although it can be used in a variety of different games, games that have this system will largely feel homogenous as well as being mechanically unexciting. To me, it's the hallmark of a designer that had a great idea for his game, mostly in terms of the setting, but didn't really have the knowledge or experience to develop a resolution mechanism unique to his system.

Departing a little bit from my rant against X+ to hit systems, let's first of all understood why randomness is included within games in the first place. Randomness, for example, affects drastically the replay-ability of games. If we think of a single board game session as an exercise in which we have a defined start state and end at a end state that is decided by the events throughout the game, it is clear that if a game always ends at an end state very similar from session to session, the replayability will be low. If one particular strategy is overwhelmingly more powerful to the extent that the player that does that strategy will always win, then it is likely that players will soon stop playing the game since it has simply become an attempt to reach that premium strategy and nothing else. There are some badly designed euro games that fall precisely within this trap. It is clear, then, that in order to be successful a game requires a way in order to make it possible to reach diverse end states, all of which are possible to achieve while playing the game. The two main ways to diversify the end state have usually an element of either of the following (there are possibly more elements but these seem to be the most prevalent to me):

The first element is the unpredictability of the actions of other players. This element is usually strongest in games that have little randomness, like for example worker placement games like Caylus or Agricola. Political manipulation games also feature this element strongly, although the unpredictability can be sometimes manipulated by cutting a deal that is mutually beneficial to both players (of recent games that I've played, Tammany Hall features this element). Unpredictability can be used as a replacement for randomness, especially within games in which there is an antagonistic selection of resources/worker spaces/etc.

The other element is of course randomness. Randomness helps to diversify the end state of games in several ways, with the most important being the inability to be sure if you can fulfill an action or not (where I define stuff like hitting a monster for damage as also being an action). Unlike the former element, where you might be unable to perform a desired action due to the actions of others, with this element you are unable to perform actions due to random chance of not being able to perform them. Every roll of the dice or draw of the card branches the path towards the possible end state, because if you don't deal with the monster THIS turn you will need to plan to deal with him the next!

It is important to note that in order to make a game truly re-playable and enjoyable through many, many games, a mixture of the two elements above is important and to lean too much towards one side can actually be detrimental (although not all of the times). A game which entirely relies on the first element might find it's re-play value curtailed after a group that has been playing it develops too much of a meta. I define meta here as an almost group-think element that can be constructed within groups after repeated plays in which the group accepts (correctly or incorrectly, it does not actually matter which) that there is only a particular way to play the game. Some of the strongest examples of this I've found within 18XX games, games are almost devoid of randomness entirely except for the starting order and thus rely on player unpredictability in order to remain interesting in subsequent plays. There are many 18XX games in which my group has developed an Accepted Method of Winning, usually to the detriment of our playing experience, since the sessions spent playing that particular version of 18XX homogenize into one, with the only memorable games being the ones in which a new strategy manages to break the meta.

On the other hand, games can stray too far into using randomness as a crutch in order to boost the re-play value of a game. If a game is too random, players can feel like choices within the game become meaningless since even playing the game at the peak of your abilities can lead you to be last. It's at this point that an important distinction needs to be made: is the game being played PURELY for the experience (as all games are meant to impart a certain experience to the player) or are they being played in order to test the strategy//intelligence/skill of the player?

Let's note that neither of the objectives outlined above are necessarily wrong or bad. Board games don't necessarily need to provide a challenge or be tactically interesting in order to fulfill their purpose as entertainment (although for some that will be an important aspect of playing games, as it is usually for me). What is important is that the designer of the game has internalized this choice and thus bases his design decisions on what he wants the game to achieve. I've seen plenty of games on, for example, Kickstarter which purport to be tactical, strategical, skillful and then when you actually look at the rules for the game in question, it's almost entirely luck based. It's the divergence from the purported objectives of the design and the actual outcomes of the mechanistic rules of a game that can cause a game to ultimately feel unrewarding.
On the other hand, I usually find that games that are up-front about being experience generators are more successful in their design. Tales of the Arabian Nights is not the greatest of games but I find that it hits its intended function perfectly: although the game features a win condition, it is a second thought compared to the experience and stories generated by the game (and which is why I was shocked when someone suggested skipping the text when I played the last game of this, it seemed so counter-intuitive to the objectives of the game). This is also one of the reasons why a simple house rule to Arkham Horror (having someone else read cards to you) can make the game much more of an experience simulator. It is important to note, however, that in the end all games are intended to provide experiences of some sort: what is important to note is if there are other aspects to the game apart from the experience by itself.

Going back to ways in which randomness manifests itself, it might have been apparent from previous posts that I have made that I have a strong interest in wargames. Usually a strong interest in Euros seems to preclude an interest in wargames since the latter are so random and in most cases you might be right. My common way to answer this dichotomy is to point out that wargames are essentially games in which the aim is to always stack the odds within your favour: this can be done by ensuring that your attacks are likely to succeed while forcing your opponent to make though decisions that might potentially backfire if they go wrong. Although this is true in most games, within wargames this aspect tends to be more organic due to the number of individual units in question and the range of actions that each of these units can take. Being a wargame, however, is not enough: the system behind the wargame is also important. As much as I like games like Here I Stand, I absolutely detest the combat resolution present within the game, which is just a simple X+ to hit with very, very limited modifiers. Although stacking the odds in this system is important, the outcome can be wildly unpredictable that it almost becomes meaningless. Better systems usually involve Combat Resolution Tables, which in Paths of Glory, for example, attempt to reduce all possible factors within combat to a single dice-roll. You may ask how this changes probabilities in comparison to multiple dice rolls, but since the result of the dice is not binary (hit or miss) and instead a table is needed to look up the result of the dice roll , it is possible to have a much more finite control over the probabilities within your game. A smaller range of possible values will make your game less luck-based: differences in the ranges between small and large formations might make it more or less possible for a small formation to beat a large one: a CRT system allows a developer a much better control of how much the designer wants to make the uncertainty in dice rolls a part of his game.

It's this control over probabilities that I find lacking in most systems that use X+ to hit: there's no way to be able to manipulate the probabilities of dice to your advantage. If the ways are small and insignificant then largely the player's actual actions are going to have a very small impact on the game, with the result instead being decided by how lucky/unlucky a player is.

Although largely I have talked only about dice randomness, it is also important to speak briefly about card randomness. I usually prefer the use of cards over the use of dice in determining randomness: one of my preferred ways involves the need to shuffle decks or not, an element used to great effect by deck building games especially. A great example of this that I'm very familiar with is Card Driven Strategy games: there are many different designs within this genre of wargames but usually the ones that I find more fulfilling are the ones in which several reshuffles of the deck are necessary, which brings in elements of deck management to the game as you want to get enemy events out of the deck in order to stack the deck in your favour. On the other hand, decks that do not get reshuffled tend to be more random in terms of what cards affect the game: a great example of this is For the People, an otherwise excellent CDG that slightly suffers from the fact that you only cycle through the even deck once. Another example of card randomness is when cards are used as random events: I have already gone through this in my review of Yedo when comparing the game to Dungeon Lords. Both games use random events but a measure of forewarning in Dungeon Lords allows the player to have a chance to change his plans, something that in my opinion ultimately enhances the gaming experience.

One important positive aspect of randomness is that it can level the playing field:: it allows inexperienced players to play with experienced players at a level field that ensure that the game remains competitive throughout. I think this is an important aspect of randomness but I find that the length of the game can be equally important: if a game lasts too long and is too random, no matter how level the playing field is, it's gonna be unrewarding even for newbies, especially if early luck snowballs into ultimately winning the game. I find that shorter games do not tend to have as much of a problem with needing to limit too much randomness because the game is over quickly enough to prevent people from dwelling too long about having lost due to random luck.

To end an article that has been going on for far, far too long, I think randomness is an important aspect of game design, but it does need to be tempered in order to prevent it being the only memorable thing about the  mechanics of your game. It is still helpful to point out, however, that like in all things, a degree of balance is important: take, for example, Agricola. It's possible to say that the success of this design is partially due to the occupation/minor improvement cards, which can add some variety to the game and can even change the dynamic of a session completely depending on which decks are chosen. Randomness, unlike what some of the more die-hard euro fans suggest, is not something that needs to be removed: it's something that needs to be managed.