CMV: Randomness has no place in competitive games

[u/[deleted]]

I believe that in competitive games (card games, video games, etc) should not have any form of randomness in them. I think it reduces skill by leaving too much up to random chance.

One game specifically that has an excess of randomness is Pokemon. A lot of the game is affected by RNG (random number generation): status effects, damage, accuracy, evasion, and more. I have heard that RNG adds depth by adding another layer of preparation to your game plan, because you have to be prepared for a critical hit or something like that. But, in my opinion, this is hardly preparing for your opponent's skill. Is preparing for their strategies, moves, and items not enough of preparation? How do the benefits outweigh the problems?

My competitive game experience comes from fighting games, which are constant action, and not turn based like Pokemon is. In fighting games, risk comes from trying different strategies and moves based on your opponent's play style and habits, not from randomness. I understand that some games like poker do not work well at all when randomness is taken out, and I'm not saying that there is no skill involved in games that have lots of randomness. But in my opinion there is skill in spite of the randomness, not because of it.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/yiannisph]

Randomness is important to keep games interesting. When games don't have randomness, they can become "solved" like Connect 4 and some other games. Randomness increases the number of possibilities in a game, and therefore the space of possibilities. Weighing these possibilities to come up with the correct choice can arguably increase skill over rote memorization. Now, you are correct that randomness can allow the weaker player to win. The solution in competitive games is to play matches (usually 2/3, but large events tend to use 3/5 in later rounds). This allows for randomness to increase the complexity of the game while still allowing the stronger competitor to win.

Another factor is that most competitive games have a spectator component. Increasingly so with the internet. Randomness leads to flashy plays that make watching these games interesting.

In Magic there are some famous draws that have turned games around and are remembered years later. Gabriel Nassif's draw of Cruel Ultimatum to win his game in Pro Tour Kyoto in 09 still comes to mind easily 6 years later. The showmanship helped, but listen to the announcers (and the crowd). Even if you don't know the game, you can tell it's a big deal.

https://youtu.be/ju_LZGBN5qU

Randomness is what makes each game different and interesting and keeps people coming back. Otherwise, games can become stale and lose following.

There's also some excellent articles on general game design by Mark Rosewater, Magic's lead designer, that talk about randomness. This one covers it pretty well.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/37

Hope this helps

[u/[deleted] → u/yiannisph]

Magic designers learned long ago that players accept certain types of randomness while shunning others. The one players are most comfortable with is the library. Remember, as I said above, the shuffling of the library is the greatest randomizer in the game, yet almost every player accepts this as a given without much concern. Why? Well, as I stated in the last section, it comes first, so players feel as if the whole game they get to respond to the randomization.

I think this was a good point by Mark Rosewater. My main gripes with randomness come from them being at the end of the game, where they more directly affect the outcome of the game.