"In Defense of ... or not... Luck and chance" Topic

Should there be more luck and chance in games or less? It has been argued that the only real excitement comes into the game through the roll of the die which decides if a given ploy or strategy wins or not, therefore the more chance the better.

I'd vote for better structured operation of chance. Too many rules authors seem to be ignorant of the actual probability of events or outcomes in their rules or the effect that modifiers have on those probabilities.

Use of d10 and such to replace d6 can give a very wide spread of results if not handled carefully – again, some rules don't seem to have allowed for that.

I don't want to be able to win ONLY by being lucky with the dice, I want there to be some skill in it too – preferably more skill than luck.

Chance vs Randomeness

Chance: Roll the die to see if you succed, (knowing the odds)

Randomness: Roll to see what happens (with little or no influnece)

As we all know, a wargame should strike that correct balance between skill & luck.

A tabletop general, skilfully manoeuvring his troops, expertly employing the tactics of the day, manipulating the terrain & anticipating his opponents' plans SHOULD win.

When a random dice roll causes him to lose, it's all just as well as it stops him getting too cocky.

It is better to be lucky than good.

yesterday's Rome vs Carthage (W&C rules):
Celtic cavalry hit 1 out of 8 needing only 3+
They did that twice in the game (out of about 5 combats)

Later, Romans saved 7 out of 9 needing a 4+

But that is what happens when you play a 13 year old.

I have no strong opinion either way. Any game should include some chance elements.

I like a bit of chance, but just randomness for randomness' sake is a bit over the top.

Chance is chance and it is all randomness. It is war, and it is life, and the more of it you have the better because war and life is like that.

What most gamers define as chance is a means of blame. We give the war gamers control over vast areas of "life" the real general does not have in "real life." Most of these "chances" or "points of ountrol" are things that others do in real life, but, we shift the responsibility to him because we have no one else to blame, and we feel, quite stupidly, that if we don't check every detail then we have no one but ourselves to blame. Therefore, in the game it becomes simply a grotesque game of "may I" "May I take three giant steps?" "May I throw a rock at you?" "I want to take three baby steps." "AN NO! You didn't say "May I".

In real life all of these failures of "the little people" "the Munchkins" below you to not do their jobs is something you do not know of at the time, only the result, which seems, to your mind, mere "randomness." As I cannot hold and inquiry and find out that that figure over there on the left, Sergeant Beitz did not have his men chip their flints and that was the reason the 443rd Fusileer-Grenadiers-Tiralleurs- Muleteers of the Guard failed in their volly when the Grand Holy Winged and tarred and feathered Hussars charged them, and I cannot punish the figure of Sgt Beitz with 30 lashes with a hot soldering iron, the whole thing becomes silly.

There may be a logical chain of events as to why something happened, all the way back to the horse shoe nail, we do not have to reproduce that chain in war games. It is simply that something happened we did not expect, and that appears to us as "randomness" and that, in the game, is all we need.

One bad roll might lose a game, but it shouldnt lose the game 10 minutes after it starts. I sat thru an hour and a half explanation of the rules, we took another half hour to set up, and after moving twice, came into contact. My bad roll caused not only that unit to break, but every other unit on the whole left flank. The whole thing was over before it began. And not but one or two stands lost in the whole army.

Not more chance. More "probability and outcome". More understanding of the odds presented by rolling dice, not more dice rolling. Although there is something to be said for rolling enough to smooth out the weird rolls….

@warhawkwind: A single roll to create such catastrophic morale failure is okay, if historically it happened. In "my" period, medieval infantry either broke before cavalry or they stood. If they were good enough to stand, then they only check morale again if they are losing the melee, i.e. taking casualties significantly bad enough to require a morale check. Units that need to test to stand before cavalry charges probably shouldn't affect better troops; for example, a unit of feudal peasants laced with a few retinue troops, break in front of a cavalry charge, and the unit on their left flank, being the center of the line, are "Brabancon" mercenaries with a uniform phalanx of spear/pikes presented and do not check to receive the cavalry charge, nor do they check morale for seeing the feudal levy to their right break and run. Badly written morale rules will not go into enough detail on who checks for seeing friendlies rout and who does not check, etc….