Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yeah. This is the way "gamble" is commonly used. Under @EzekielRaiden's definition, Poker, Blackjack and similar games wouldn't be gambling, because you have a good amount of control over the game.
D&D General "Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said, given that (a) there's stakes, usually money, which makes them gambling as I'd previously said, and (b) no, you really don't have control over the game--the cards fall where they may, as it were. Blackjack, poker, and similar games absolutely are "the house always wins," at least in the long run--doesn't matter how skillful you are. That's why casinos use them to make money.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Skills games vs chance games has been spotlighted very recently in the Loot Boxes controversy.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Poker is skill and chance, though. It's not purely one or the other. And it's absolutely gambling when you play it for money.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Loot Boxes controversy? Don't know this one.
jmartkdr2
Hero
In some places, the question "are loot boxes (with random output) gambling?" has been asked in legal contexts. Like with lawyers and judges and such. If they qualify as gambling, certain regulations apply.
I recall offhand this being an (legal) issue in both the US and China, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear about it happening anywhere. IANAL, so I don't want to go into any detail due to the risk of giving a legal opinion, but the answer has massive (in moneys) implications.
Here are a bunch of articles on it too
Video game loot boxes | Series | Ars Technica
Serving the Technologist for more than a decade. IT news, reviews, and analysis.
arstechnica.com
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
In addition to the above legal controversy, there's the wider social controversy. Loot boxes used to be confined to a relatively small portion of games, often those that don't have other revenue streams. A few years back, they started proliferating EVERYWHERE, even into games that you buy for real money AND that have paid DLC. Several games got incredibly bad press/customer responses due to having or adding
See, for instance, the absolute brouhaha surrounding the addition of safes (loot boxes) to Payday 2 and the fact that skins coming from them had stats. Particularly when it was revealed that, despite the developers' protestations to the contrary ("it's only one or two points, it's not a big deal" more or less), within days of launch, the fanbase had proven that the math tweaks in the then-most-recent balance patch had reduced numbers across the board JUST enough that you could no longer hit breakpoints unless you had an appropriate skin (e.g. most guards have HP in a multiple of 40, but numerous guns suddenly dealt 39 maximum damage...unless you got a rare skin for it that added an extra point or two.
Loot boxes outside of gacha games tend to be seen as a very scummy way to make money. The only game I've ever seen that has a more-or-less reasonable loot box system is Warframe. Its loot boxes are called "relics." Relics:
- never benefit from any resource you can buy with the real-money currency
- are earned and opened only through normal play
- can be traded with other players
- have exactly 6 possible items clearly displayed on them
- can be improved to up your chance of getting rare stuff
- are the only source, via trading in unwanted items, of a valuable resource
- have their rewards shared in multiplayer (so if any squad member gets a rare, everyone can choose it if they want; choosing someone else's reward also gives them a small resource boost)
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I can clearly see why this would be a problem if the game somehow forced you to pay to access the loot boxes and you were otherwise (more or less) unable to proceed or complete the game without some resource that could only be obtained from said loot boxes. That's scummy all day long.
If they're free to obtain through play, however, and have random contents, the concept seems fine in principle: it's just a matter of luck what you get (and maybe whether you even find any).
I don't play multi-player online games so the whole trade-with-others thing isn't something I ever have to worry about.
But let's put this in an RPG context. If I'm programming a D&D campaign simulation game, does this mean I can't randomize what's found in, say, a dragon's treasure hoard? I can do this playing live at the table no problem, I should be able to do it in a program, right? Or am I missing something else here?
Scott Christian
Hero
Fear is not ever present in our games, and most that I have played/DM'ed. I think there are things a DM can do to mitigate this paranoia, and I think the broader moods enhance the game. Here are a few specific examples:
- DM buddy of mine built a fun drinking, dancing, riddle filled dungeon that needed to be navigated to get information from a good guy, a copper dragon in fact. (And yes, we literally had to drink and enter a dance off.)
- Less extreme, most of my trusting NPC's do specific things: the Captain of the guards reaches into her own coin purse to pay you to check on her men; approaching the halfling you see him hugging his child and playing horseshoes with his wife; the merchant who hired you throws a feast and you have a line of jokes he likes to tell.
- As DM, one can describe the setting with comic or serene similes and metaphors. The music in the background helps too.
- Just as important, don't change moods quickly. Foreshadow any upcoming trouble. This tempers players reactions to "the good folk" around them.
To be honest, I can't imagine playing a game without good spots. Without places, people, or things that are worth protecting. I mean, a good corrupted setting and tension based narrative is awesome. But, so is making friends at the pub over a game of dice or a drinking contest or a "who can balance the dagger on their head" contest. (Not in real life, but with rolls.) A spectrum is needed.
Similar Threads
