Luck in RPGs

While I was looking at the different win rates for certain decks that are usually played in Magic: The Gathering Arena, I noticed that most of them have a win rate between 54-60%. In other words, even if you have really good cards, your chance of winning a game is just a little bit better than winning the flip of a coin.

It might seem like a rather low percentage, and it is. But it makes sense, if you think about it. If two players have exactly the same cards, and if both players are equally skilled, then the winner will be decided by luck: specifically, by the order of the cards in each deck.

The antithesis of this would be a deterministic game like chess. If both players are equally skilled, then the game should theoretically end in a draw.

RPGs typically have a bit of a luck factor built into them. And in a tabletop scenario you can usually turn unlucky rolls into memorable situations, especially if they are hilarious in some way. In computer RPGs, though, an unlucky roll of the dice could be rather disappointing, for example if your solo run through the Baldur's Gate saga ends because some unremarkable enemy just happened to land a critical hit.

Do you like the luck factor in RPGs? Or would you like to see more deterministically-oriented games in this genre?

m7600 said:

Do you like the luck factor in RPGs? Or would you like to see more deterministically-oriented games in this genre?

Click to expand...

Having designed a number of games (tabletop and even some computer games), this is something I've thought about a lot. And especially for ttrpgs, it's not just about luck, but how you want that luck distributed. Without going off on a tangent, I'll just say there's a pretty big difference with how luck functions between a game like D&D and a game like Shadowrun.

Generally speaking, I'm very fussy and fickle about how luck plays into a game, particularly in how it can often be an easy replacement for player skill elements. Tabletop RPGs already have a significant social negotiation element (e.g. dynamic between the GM and players and how that may lead to fudging rolls or adjusting challenges), then add the random chance element of dice rolling, there's not a lot of space for skilled players. D&D (namely 5th edition) is a good example. Unless you intentionally build to fail, you probably won't. It's essentially a reverse casino design. That is, most players who lose a decent amount in a casino don't lose big. They slowly lose their money over time due to a varying house advantage, but players get windfalls once in a while to encourage them to keep going. D&D, on the other hand, is built for power fantasy. Players slowly win over time due to a varying player advantage, but players eventually get (recoverable) setbacks once in a while so they feel like they've earned their wins and don't feel like they are getting spoon-fed a participation trophy.

With cRPGs it gets a little trickier. On the plus side, you can remove the weak/bad GM element. The computer plays by the rules, every time. It has to, it's coded. On the other hand, the computer is not thinking, so once you learn its M.O., you're likely to win every time. It generally can't change itself up to provide a new challenge. There is some skill involved, learning the computer's patterns, but once you do, play becomes rote.

That being said, I'm all for luck being used to provide the context or environment for play (e.g. randomly generated levels or the like). This is a simulated creativity that lets me be creative with how I approach a new challenge. However, if the efficacy of my choices as a player just boil down to a coin toss every time, then ultimately, I'm just playing a game of chance.

m7600 said:

for example if your solo run through the Baldur's Gate saga ends because some unremarkable enemy just happened to land a critical hit.

Click to expand...

This statement made me think of X-Com. There is definitely a random chance element to this game (which fans have made many memes about), but also a huge player skill element. However, it's tricky. Player skill in X-Com isn't about the singular choices you make, but the contingency plans you create. I think I've only ever been screwed by RNGesus once in that game, and every other death could have been prevented with a better contingency plan (which I could have figured out at the time if I thought more about my choices). If you're playing BG, all the information is there. You can tell how much of a health buffer you actually have. If you have 15 hp left, and know that a certain enemy can do 10-20 damage if an attack hits you, then you're tossing a coin over whether or not you're going to survive that next round if you stay on the offensive. But conversely, you could whiff a number of times in a row due to RNG and now you're behind the curve on the dps game that was originally in your favor. It would be like if all your land ended up at the top of your deck in a magic game. That's the shuffle where you lose.

All that being said, I'd generally be fine with RNG being a thing in a game, but I wouldn't want it to overshadow player skill. What would that even look like though? This is a large part of why I haven't tried to make a bigger thing of my designs. I mean, they all check the boxes for a "viable product", but it doesn't solve for this problem and that's really the game I would want to put out there.

I think it would be generally very hard to design an RPG game in which luck/RNG isn't a factor. Because in even action rpgs, where you do set damage with your attack and whether you hit or miss is attributed to player's skill alone, there are rng elements like enemies behaviour.

For instance, in Monster Hunter World (I don't consider it as an rpg, but the same situation can apply) one of the bosses has a very deadly fire cone attack, but if you are positioned well, then not only you can get out of its way, but also you have several seconds of opening to target the monster's head. Whether the boss uses the attack or not is due to rng - in other words, luck. But, this luck can be manipulated by player's behaviour, you can bait this particular attack by being in an "optimal" range for it. It doesn't always work, because even if its more likely, it's still rng. The whole point is not only to talk about one of my favourite games, but also to show that luck is often a factor even in skill-based games.

But in rpgs like classic Fallouts and Baldur's Gates, rng and luck are a huge factor, yet you still have ways of turning odds to your favour in combat and other situations. Not only by your and your companion's stats and equipment but also due to various ways of buffing yourself and in the case of Baldur's Gate, negate some luck factors completely. Don't feel like dealing with Vampire's level drain (they need to hit you to drain levels, so it is determined by attack rolls)? Protection from negative energy. Don't like dealing with Mind Flyer's psionic attacks? You don't have to count on your saving throws when Chaotic Commands spell is your best friend! And so on. And I think the player's ability to turn the odds in their favour is really fun in "luck-based" games.

There are even instances in which luck can be fun in itself. If, in the instance of Diablo II, when Tyraels Might or Zod rune drop for me (the rarest items in the game) I am willing to bet I will well remember the day and instances in which they happened, it will be that much of a big deal. The dopamine hit will also be insane and I'd have bragging rights about it.

I guess I can say, luck factor can be fun, especially if you have ways of manipulating your chances.

I like some RNG elements in games, sure. Probably exactly because of certain grades of RNG in HoMM 3, I still play this game regularly. But HoMM 3 is not an RPG ofc.

When it comes to RPGs, dice mechanic comes to my mind. BG1&2 and Diablo 2 were among the first games I played, and I still play them. Luck matters a lot there and I like (same as in HoMM) to find ways to counter bad luck here and there, and use my good luck to the maximum. I call it reactivity to challenges. It was different in Morrowind, though, because first-person combat and luck don't make much sense to me. I am still not at that stage as @O_Bruce is, to appreciate luck in skill-based games.

BG3 was a game where I liked dice in combat and didn't like it in dialogue rolls at all. All I did when getting an unfortunate dialogue roll each time was a reload, something I try to minimize otherwise in all games I play.

I like luck in ESO. Due to luck, you can feel almost the same vibe as in Diablo 2 when you find "just that one drop". I remember I liked how I appreciated the Diablo-like system for loot in Divinity: Original Sin 2. To think about it, even in old Might & Magic games, I enjoyed finding good loot due to luck. Or finding, for example, a very helpful NPC early because of luck (e.g. one who can provide you with the Town Portal spell).

Antimatter said:

To think about it, even in old Might & Magic games, I enjoyed finding good loot due to luck. Or finding, for example, a very helpful NPC early because of luck (e.g. one who can provide you with the Town Portal spell).

Click to expand...

Man, the times of grinding legendary items in dragon infested lands of M&M VI and M&M VII Fun times.

I'm one of those weird RPG players that don't like dice rolls, hah! I assume I'm fairly alone on this hill. I spend most planning and playing to *negate* the impact of luck to the point of it, if I manage, where it becomes a complete non-event for the CHARNAME. In BG playing a dwarf F/C pushing your saves well into the negatives was a good way to secure save rolls and negate the roll's effect on you for example. I like RPGs for the character creation part, the constant hunt for more exp and items, for more power basically and for finding ways to "break" the game mechanics in my favor. It gives me joy, I admit, if I do find reliable ways to gain unfair advantages.

But there are other ways to incorporate luck into games, ie "luck stats" such as in Fallout. I like those. The idea that some characters have just plain luck and succeeds when they perhaps shouldn't is fun and exciting. But when a game let's you reroll a skill check and you click the same chest to lockpick five times in a row until the dice tells you that you managed to pick the lock, that's not fun. That's just silly to me.

I have in the past thought a bit about RPG rulesets and even once speculated on my own, how to setup up ie combat without dice rolls determining *too* much. I found one way to do it, in theory at least, and I'm sure there are plenty other ways. The challenge here is that there are so many preconcieved ideas of what a RPG *should* be that it seems too few people actually sit down and think about it carte blanche. Almost every game created fall quickly into tropes and standards and even though some tweaks here and there are implemented, when was the last time you played a game that had a completely new way of doing it without the classic dice roll? I can't remember a single one, and I've tried a fair share of expensive games and some smaller, indie ones too.

So to summarize, I can enjoy luck based games, but not because of the dice rolls, but despite them. And I truly only want one thing in life: for devs to dare to think outside the box and start fresh, think new and try something strange, and wild and maybe even a bit deterministic.

Edit: Got a pretty strong sense of deja vu now, that I already wrote almost the same thing once before.. here? Or maybe it was in another forum, heh.

Skatan said:

I'm one of those weird RPG players that don't like dice rolls

Click to expand...

I'm kinda the same way. Perhaps ironically, the more I design RPGs, the more finicky I get about dice and RNG. My evolving goal is to make an RPG that's truly more strategic, not necessarily as a whole, but in some meaningful way. However, it's really hard to do with a ttRPG because strategy games tend to rely on a finite gameplay loop whereas RPGs, by their nature, are pretty open ended. As I see it, moving in a strategy direction also effectively moves you in a "board game" direction. This isn't necessarily a problem, and can be a thing in a sub-system (i.e. combat), but nobody really designs that. Plus, it's not easy to do without just shoehorning a board game into an RPG.

I was saying something in this vein recently somewhere else. It was basically about how D&D opened up the possibility of making the game more strategic/tactical with the battlemap, but really it's all still just an over-complicated bookkeeping game of chance. I can see why they do it though. D&D is not meant to provoke analytical thought, it's meant to tap into a desire for power fantasy. It's essentially an inverse casino model. A long string of games of chance, but with a player advantage instead of a house advantage. You do have some real bad dice slumps now and again. However, these are just there to provide contrast to the usual slow and steady winning. Generally, D&D players come out ahead over time. The game is designed for things to play out this way.

But then you have the D&D counterculture. Some might argue that it's the storygamers, but I would say there's a very different dynamic there. Instead, I would give OSR the credit for that. The thing is, OSR isn't trying to evolve the model, but reform it. Really, in the culture of RPGs and indie designers, very few people are trying to tackle a project like this and it's a hell of a lot harder to do than crank out yet another storygame.

Yes, I like the luck factor, since it makes most games enjoyable to me. I get bored playing a game when the end result is already known and set in stone. No thank you. Give me more luck-based stuff.

I largely agree with @Skatan 's sentiments on game design. I definitely want to see more thinking outside the box in that regard. And some RPGs do this, but it's almost always in relation to the setting and/or story (i. e., Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1, Quest for Glory 3, etc.), yet we don't see the same approach regarding mechanics, at least not as often. Mechanics tend to be the most conservative element of RPGs. Things like stats, experience points, and character level are so ingrained into the genre that if a game were to eschew them, it would barely qualify as an RPG -the roleplaying elements notwithstanding-.

I had toyed around with the idea of a deterministic and qualitative combat system, instead of the dice-based and quantitative approach that we're all more familiar with. My motivation is a simple observation: in the real world, people don't have hit points. If a patient shows up at a hospital with a stab wound, the doctors are not going to try to figure out how many hit points the patient lost and how many he has left, because the patient doesn't have hit points to begin with. Instead, they'll determine if the wound is superficial, serious but not fatal, or life-threatening (or something along those lines). In other words, they'll make a qualitative assessment. So my idea was to make a combat system in which, for example, a shortsword doesn't do 1d6 points of piercing damage or whatever, instead it would make either a superficial wound, or a serious wound, or a mortal wound, depending on where the blade lands. But I never got around to making an entire design document, it's just more convenient to use an already existing hitpoint-based system.

m7600 said:

I largely agree with @Skatan 's sentiments on game design. I definitely want to see more thinking outside the box in that regard. And some RPGs do this, but it's almost always in relation to the setting and/or story (i. e., Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1, Quest for Glory 3, etc.), yet we don't see the same approach regarding mechanics, at least not as often. Mechanics tend to be the most conservative element of RPGs. Things like stats, experience points, and character level are so ingrained into the genre that if a game were to eschew them, it would barely qualify as an RPG -the roleplaying elements notwithstanding-.

Click to expand...

I just got into a very similar conversation about this on reddit. It was all about how one could possibly integrate more "skill" into tabletop RPGs. It's an interesting design challenge.

The idea with which you are toying around (@m7600) is on the right track, in my humble opinion. Often times, the skill conversations include references to video games. However, the skill element in video games often boil down to hand-eye coordination, which would almost certainly be a silly element to add to a tabletop rpg. It makes sense for video games, though. Your interface with the game is essentially pushing buttons. Figuring out which buttons to push and the pattern/speed to do so is the only avenue to test skill. RPGs are different. Your interface is language. So, unless you throw in some true board game elements (and by that, I'm implying that D&D's battlemap doesn't fit this criteria), you have to work with language to test players skill.

I think this is much harder to design for in an RPG. A video game controller is just a panel of (mostly) binary switches. Language is far more complex and has a lot more subjectivity. I think the crux is in how language is codfied (i.e. objectified) in an RPG as a mutually agreed upon interface element. These are your "buttons" so to speak. But then the GM needs coaching on how to use those "button presses" in creative and meaningful ways.

m7600 said:

So my idea was to make a combat system in which, for example, a shortsword doesn't do 1d6 points of piercing damage or whatever, instead it would make either a superficial wound, or a serious wound, or a mortal wound, depending on where the blade lands. But I never got around to making an entire design document, it's just more convenient to use an already existing hitpoint-based system.

Click to expand...

This has been done in a lot of games, using wound mechanics instead of hit point mechanics. Check this out. This game is one of my darling favorites for the design and doesn't use hit points. The guy who made it (Simon Washbourne) also made Barbarians of Lemuria. 1940 - England Invaded was just a 24-hour RPG project he polished up a little and put out there.

I think d20 modern (3.5e) does the same thing. You take "damage" which determines the saving throw needed to resist the damage and not take a wound. The SRD is probably free online somewhere.

JustKneller said:

I just got into a very similar conversation about this on reddit. It was all about how one could possibly integrate more "skill" into tabletop RPGs. It's an interesting design challenge.

Click to expand...

There's a game called What Lies Beneath that has some interesting skill checks, maybe you already know it. If not, here's an example, at the 7:16 timestamp. The dexterity check here involves a mini-game in which you make a dice tower with a few d6, and you have to throw another d6 at the tower from a short distance. If you knock it down, you pass the dexterity check.


Edit: actually, I misremembered, you have to hit the dice tower without knocking it down. But you get the overall idea.

So, I never would have thought of that dice tower thing. I've played a lot of crokinole, though, so I'd probably kill it in this game. This kinda makes me think of Dread, but I was thinking skill as in player analytical ability.

But, I really like the choose your own adventure style book. It kinda reminds me of the Moldvay B/X into adventure. This is actually a pretty cool format. I'm surprised I haven't seen more solo games designed this way. One could easily do a whole series of OSR games this way.

Ok, I kinda want to riff on What Lies Beneath for a minute. I just watched a few more videos about it. My first impression was that the concept is pretty cool. It's a good design to play a solo RPG if you can't muster up a group. Also, I have a Lovecraftian horror game I made some time ago that might actually work to convert to that format (and the solo aspect can really play into the themes of isolation prevalent in cosmic horror).

I thought about it some more, and I'm wondering if the RNG aspect of it (i.e. dice rolling) works against the agency provided by the choose your own adventure aspect. These are definitely opposing elements. Chance vs. choice. This hasn't put me off of the format, but it's given me something to think about. I mean, on the other hand, you can remove the chance completely, but then it's not a game anymore, just a choose your own adventure book.

I dunno. I just think there's a lot of design opportunity there. I'm just wondering what is possible...

JustKneller said:

I'm wondering if the RNG aspect of it (i.e. dice rolling) works against the agency provided by the choose your own adventure aspect. These are definitely opposing elements. Chance vs. choice.

Click to expand...

You can always introduce more mini-games. Instead of rolling a d6 (for example), you count instead throw three darts at a target. The closer to the bullseye, the better the result.

If you want to test the player's creative skills instead of their motor skills, there's other options. Let's say that the player reaches a door that is magically locked. The only way to open the lock is to make up a rhyme that is relevant to the situation. It's up to the player to choose the words. So, for example they could say something like this:

"The following room
I wish to explore,
allow these brief words
to unlock this door."

Something like that could also work for solo play, you would record the rhyme in your character sheet or journal. And you could make it a rule that if your character dies, your next character can't use the same rhyme.

m7600 said:

You can always introduce more mini-games. Instead of rolling a d6 (for example), you count instead throw three darts at a target.

Click to expand...

This is the direction I'm thinking, but more pragmatic. If the game materials are a dart board, and most people don't have that, it creates an entry barrier.

However, another approach would be to have some kind of print and play board kind of like a crokinole or carrom board. I'm trying to think of things that aren't just randomizers (i.e. dice and cards) and all I come up with are dexterity games.

JustKneller said:

I'm trying to think of things that aren't just randomizers (i.e. dice and cards) and all I come up with are dexterity games.

Click to expand...

Riddles are another option, i.e. "How far can one venture into a forest?", the answer being: "halfway, since any step further is no longer venturing in, but venturing out instead."

You can also give them quizzes or just ask them questions about the world, i. e "A flying reptilian animal with bat-like wings and only two legs is called what?" The correct answer being "Wyvern" instead of "Dragon" or "Pterodactyl".

I'm not sure how riddles would work in this medium, though. It would look something like:

How far can you venture into the forest?

If you choose "all the way" go to page X
If you choose "halfway", go to page Y
If you choose "blah blah blah", go to page Z

If you see the options, then you're likely to figure it out. It's kind of like Brage's riddle in BG. Not that it was terribly hard, but with the options there, it was obvious.

Oh, I was thinking of several players at the table instead of solo play, my bad. Yeah, for solo play riddles would be difficult to implement.

It's cool. I think What Lies Beneath sold me on taking a crack at a solo RPG. It definitely cuts out some options, but I feel like it can open up others.

Glad that What Lies Beneath caught your interest. A lot of cool solo games have sprung up lately, as in, the past few years. It's kind of a thing, all of a sudden. Several YouTube channels are almost entirely dedicated to solo play nowadays.

Changing the subject for a moment, I feel like there's something that we can say in favor of dice or other RNG mechanics, and against deterministic combat. The thing with deterministic combat is that the outcome is foreseeable. If I only have 10 hit points, and a monster hits me deterministically for 2 points of damage, I know that I'll be dead in 5 rounds. If I do just 1 point of damage and if I know that the monster has 10 hit points, there's no way I'm going to win the battle, so my only option is to flee. With a RNG, this is not necessarily the case. If the monster does 1d4 damage each round, I could last between 3 to 10 rounds, from worst case scenario to best. If I do 1d2 damage per round, I'll kill the monster in 10 to 5 rounds, again from worst to best case. So, unlike the deterministic encounter mentioned before, I don't necessarily have to flee. I might win the battle. The odds are against me, but I still have a chance.