AWKWARD ZOMBIE

This is a topic for more in depth discussion on gaming mechanics and the like. To give you an idea of what sort of thing you can talk about here, I'll start things off.

Earlier we had a discussion in the smash bros thread about the randomness of items. Some people argued that randomness creates more variety. While this is definitely true, I want to argue that randomness is not necessary to introduce variation into a game. It would help if you are already familiar with chaos theory and the game of life.

Basically, the most interesting aspect of game theory to me is how from a relatively simple set of rules a near infinite multitude of situations can arise, a complex metagame if you will. Let's look at some examples:
possible iterations of a game of chess≈ 10^123 (Shannon number)
Atoms in observable universe≈ 10^80
Unique card deck shuffles = 52! ≈ 8*10^60 (this is still a large enough number that a shuffled deck of cards is different from any deck of cards that has ever existed)

A clear example that variety is perfectly obtainable in a game with carefully chosen simple rules. Of course the caveat is that a lot of those iterations of chess games would only occur if one or both players played extremely illogically. A truely varied metagame needs a multitude of viable different strategies (strategies that have a probably chance of winning).

Randomness in games to me always seemed to be more a way to simulate risk/reward more then to introduce variety. In big/standard number RPGs for example, the random factor on how much damage an attack will do adds a small amount of tension to the system. There are also critical hits, which can create a small "rush" in the player even though all it will do 90% of the time is kill a random jobber kook slightly faster. Of course, in a Boss critical hits shorten a long battle, which could be a valuable resource. While at it's base this is a manipulation of the player's feelings to make battles seem more exciting, it also adds strategies based around luck manipulation to make a character's strength these occasional boosts in attack, thus adding more (arguably more legitimate, as it changes the gameplay experience without introducing major shifts in events) variety to gameplay style.

Games that are more based around "Skill" then "Strategy" don't seem to like they need much randomness, particularly in a competitive setting. However, in my opinion randomness can still be a legitimate way of adding variety to a game, although in the case of the items or similar tactics it may sacrifice a certain degree of fairness in the competitive setting. Of course, Smash Bros. seems more like it's supposed to be a crazy but fun mess, so I don't really see any issue with Items existing, especially because you can turn them off.

I feel like I should point out I've never actually played SSB, but I kinda gleamed the systems by just being around. I may be wrong about the items thing though so, ya' know.

I'd agree that randomness could be necessary to create tension in games where you play against the AI, since it's hard to make an AI that's both unpredictable and threatening. Versus a human opponent though I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

As you've said though, some people like randomness in their game for differing reasons. My only point is that randomness isn't necessary to create variety.

As you've already said, in chess, most of the different combinations will never occur with people who know what they're doing.
But with the cards, shuffling is an act of randomness so I don't really know why you put that in there as an example of not randomness.
It's not entirely random, since a person's manipulation is required if you don't have a shuffling machine, but for all intents and purposes, as long as the shuffler doesn't cheat, it's impossible to predict the outcome of the shuffling, which makes it as good as random.

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding, I put that in as an example of randomness for comparison.

A lot of people will build a deck to minimize randomness though, it's why cards that toss out your current hand for a whole new one and such exist. Card games are less random, because you're basically drawing from a set that you personally customized at a set time.

Things like the items in SSB however, appear whenever, wherever, and you only get a choice in what appears. There's no real personalization to it, you don't choose when they appear, or where. It's a much more random thing.

My example was classic playing cards, not TCG. Your point still stands otherwise of course.

for me randomness is more frustrating than beneficial because if removes skill from the equation completely. it's why i (and most people, really) get frustrated at game like monopoly because you're losing due to things you can't really control.

but in games that AREN'T pvp, randomness can be pretty good. games like l4d(2) thrive and need it because it would be boring and repetitive otherwise. because of the unpredictable nature of the master A.I. it creates a much better gameplay because of the need to think of different strategies

so i think randomness is good in regards to non PVP games, because in PVP games it can create a lot of tension and anger.

Something to note is that L4D and L4D2 don't use randomness. They use the A.I. Director, which studies everything that's happening and creates waves and individual zombies where it deems appropriate. It's not completely random, it's actually a pretty complex logical thing determined almost entirely by the players. If the same group of players did the exact same things every time, the Director would always create the same scenario.

Things like rougelikes use randomness in a more... random way. Taking pre-determined room structures and mixing them up, adding new things into them. FTL is one I'm basically currently obsessed with, and that's about as random as you can get. Every new jump may or may not contain an enemy ship, which is based off several different blueprints but with a multitude of potential weapons, systems, and crew. Even then, though, it's not perfectly random, because just based on the shape of a ship you can determine certain key things about it's structure.

Well Monopoly and games like it use randomness pretty much entirely to remove skill for the equation. Monopoly is a family game that kids play with their parents often, they don't want to give the kids no chance to win, then it wouldn't be fun for them, and monopoly would be much less popular.

And as for single player games, randomness is very useful for replayability to make the enemies unpredictable, creating a unique scenario each time you play, especially in games like fire emblem.

If you want to create a competitive game, randomness should be kept to a minimum. But if you want to make something fun for people of all skill levels, randomness can be a very useful tool for that.

Also, I have a feeling I'll like this thread. I recently made a game design philosophies file, I might get some gems here to beef it up a bit. I'll make sure to contribute and try to get a discussion going if it gets slow.

Randomness doesn't remove skill from the equation, it's just another factor. When it seems like such a larger factor than skill that it drowns it out in certain games, it can be very, very frustrating, but there's nothing wrong with some randomness in PVP games most of the time. Sometimes I want to play an unfiltered game where the only unpredictable aspect would be an opponent, but otherwise I think randomness is a good factor that can provide some added fun in an experience. This is part of the reason why I love playing Monopoly. (Poker's another good example of a player v. player game where both luck and skill are big factors.)

Also this has already been said but yeah the master AI in Left 4 Dead I don't know everything about, but it seems like it makes calculated movements and actions in the game depending directly on what players do, not unlike a predictable human opponent, but it seems to have a large enough range of actions that aren't obvious that I've heard no one really complain about knowing it's triggers. gj valve I guess.

For randomness in games that aren't PVP, some players don't like that either, speedrunners for instance.

Something to consider is that it's not pure randomness in video games. It's controlled randomness. Very often something will happen "randomly" that they game has been coded to do at that point under those conditions.

It's controlled randomness in SSB, when items appear. The game notes that yes, it should be spawning some items now, and does so. If it was true randomness, then there would be games where nothing ever spawned just naturally.

I'm not saying "randomness" is any better for that, I still think in any situation being suddenly ruined or suddenly saved by a "random" event can take away a lot of fun, but it's something to keep in mind that what we call random is really just the game following up on it's own criteria for something to happen.

"Randomness" applies whenever the game generates a random number to determine something. A lot if not most of games use formulas that implement and limit the randomness in different ways (like Path of Exile's evasion mechanics) to prevent certain undesirable outcomes from happening, in your example items never spawning during a match.

I read a really good article on randomness in turn-based RPGs, mostly about the chance to miss, and how it could be effectively removed using a few under-the-hood systems. It's a pretty fascinating read.