Richard Garfield on Luck

[Delta]

Great article in the Nov-06 Game Developer magazine. It's by Richard Garfield (creator of Magic: The Gathering), titled "Getting Lucky". (http://gdmag.com/homepage.htm)

He writes this:

Historically, games usually evolved in such a way as to reduce the amount of luck in them. Even chess at one time had dice. The people who are in a position to modify a game are likely to be very good at it, and the sort of modifications they will be drawn toward are the ones that showcase their talents and their friends' talents - although they, of course, are all top players.

In other words, as games evolve, they tend to become better for the experts, but not necessarily better for new or non-dedicated players.

Discussion question: Do you think this has happened to D&D over the past 30 years?

 

[Mark CMG]

I think some games, D&D among them, are attractive to a large degree because of the fact that dice are involved. I had a friend who used to play many games with the prime intent of limiting his number of dice rolls as much as he could. He had a lot less fun with D&D than most others who I know would prefer to step up and risk a die roll even when a safer alternative sometimes presented itself.

 

[skinnydwarf]

Discussion question: Do you think this has happened to D&D over the past 30 years?

I don't know about the last 30 years. But I think it has happened since 3e, but not for the reasons pointed to. I don't think luck has been reduced so that experienced players can do well. I think that the reduction of luck as a factor was a natural consequence of increasing the options available to players.

Back in 2e, you had only so many options for your 9th level/whatver. Some classes were more variable than others, of course, but optimization wasn't as much of an issue. If you put two 9th level fighters against each other, chances were it would be luck that determined who won (assuming they had equal magic items). Nowadays, with the variability of fighters at 9th level, luck is not necessarily going to determine the outcome, especially if one character is more optimized for the situation at hand.

For example, lets take the example of Borlag vs. Snarlax vs. Bart.

Borlag was created and optimized for one on one combat with big heavy foes, and he took lots of feats along those lines.

Snarlax was created to fire arrows effectively from horseback and rain down pain upon his enemies from afar, and has feats along those lines.

Bart was created to mow down lots of little baddies, like goblins, and has cleave/great cleave, etc.

Depending on the situation, one of these fighters is going to do better. In a straight up fight, fighter hacking at fighter, no horses, Borlag will probably prevail. If horses are allowed in this one on one fight and there is room to maneuver, Snarlax will probably prevail. If the fight is a bunch of little guys versus one fighter, Bart will probably prevail.

 

[Psion]

Discussion question: Do you think this has happened to D&D over the past 30 years?

Perhaps, to some extent. Things like a CR system and the extraction of "save or die" poisons make it so less hinges on one dice roll and you have fewer unexpected results. Indeed, the DMG recognizes this when talking about changing rules. Randomness favors the underdogs, i.e., not the PCs.

But I think in principle D&D doesn't follow the same schema as strictly competitive games, so it has less reason to become less random.

 

[kenobi65]

But I think in principle D&D doesn't follow the same schema as strictly competitive games, so it has less reason to become less random.

I agree, and I think that's the sort of games that Richard was speaking of. When the game revolves around one player beating another, the master definitely wants to remove the factor of luck, because that's the only way that he's likely to lose to a lesser player. While one could argue min-maxer D&D players might want to do the same, IME, every D&D player I've played with loves the rush that comes from rolling a "20".

 

[Wil]

Let's put it this way:

In a game like Life, extreme randomness makes for interesting play. You don't have to pay a lot of attention to play those kinds of games - it's mostly a family/social activity and a reason for people to get together. In some ways, Monopoly and poker (at least, if you're not serious about it) are the same way.

In an rpg, for some people it is very, very disillusioning to have things get fouled up by a string of bad die rolls. I realize that some people think that this adds variety, but to me if I'm supposed to be playing some larger-than-life hero it completely ruins it by having him miss six consecutive swings, have his helmet fall down over his eyes and slip on a banana peel because of a bunch of bad rolls - unless that's the kind of game I intend on playing.

It doesn't mean that there can't be game elements to a roleplaying game, or that dice are bad. Just that like everything else they should be managed and their effects on gameplay carefully considered.

 

[kenobi65]

In an rpg, for some people it is very, very disillusioning to have things get fouled up by a string of bad die rolls. I realize that some people think that this adds variety, but to me if I'm supposed to be playing some larger-than-life hero it completely ruins it by having him miss six consecutive swings, have his helmet fall down over his eyes and slip on a banana peel because of a bunch of bad rolls - unless that's the kind of game I intend on playing.

It's why our gaming group stopped playing TORG.

TORG used a single d20 for combat resolution, but the d20 roll was then compared to a chart. Most "average" rolls (in the 7-15 or so range) were "average" results, but the kicker was, if you rolled a 10 or a 20, the die "exploded", and you rolled it again, adding the results together. In that way, it's possible to get a *very* high result, if you get very lucky.

And, as we found out, when you're dealing with non-grunt opponents, you *need* those very lucky results in order to succeed. Combats became an exercise in dice rolling, as you waited and waited for that one magic die-roll (or, more accurately, waited for two or more 20s in a row).

 

[Hypersmurf]

In an rpg, for some people it is very, very disillusioning to have things get fouled up by a string of bad die rolls. I realize that some people think that this adds variety, but to me if I'm supposed to be playing some larger-than-life hero it completely ruins it by having him miss six consecutive swings, have his helmet fall down over his eyes and slip on a banana peel because of a bunch of bad rolls - unless that's the kind of game I intend on playing.

Heh. Happened to me recently.

I rolled a 1 on a Reflex Save, followed by a 2 on a Massive Damage save... which was still nearly a success, so I used an Action Point to add a d6 to the Massive Damage save, and rolled another 1.

It turned a supercool Hero moment into instant unconsciousness Oops!

-Hyp.

 

[Delta]

Let me highlight the second part of the Garfield quote:

In other words, as games evolve, they tend to become better for the experts, but not necessarily better for new or non-dedicated players.

Is D&D getting better for experts, but worse for new or part-time players?

 

[kenobi65]

Is D&D getting better for experts, but worse for new or part-time players?

Separate questions, I think, and, in D&D, one does not necessarily come at the expense of the other.

1) Compared to 30 years ago, I think it's more accessible / easy to pick up for new players, though it could still stand more improvement in that regard. The original books were pretty inscrutable to novices, and even the early attempts at "Basic D&D" were still challenging.

D&D is still the first RPG that most RPGers play, but it's still not tremendously newbie-friendly, although the unified d20 mechanic in 3E does simplify it, compared to earlier editions. OTOH, things like the Introductory Game, "D&D for Dummies", and even the D&D Minis game probably do help to ease that learning curve, not to mention that many young players may now be coming into the hobby from card games like Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh, or video RPGs, so they may already be familiar with some of the concepts.

2) What the game offers now, for "experts", is a lot more opportunity to customize your character, thanks to all the splatbooks, prestige classes, feats, etc. that are available now. As skinnydwarf has already noted, each edition of the game has added additional levels of customization and options...things that are not necessary to play the game at its basic level, but that can increase the enjoyment level for the experienced player.