I don't understand the appeal of luck-based games

[BigBoyAdvance]

How can anyone enjoy playing a game that can screw you over if you get unlucky? You could literally use the best strategies available, not make a single mistake, and miss most of your attacks, leading to an opponent's win and forcing you to retry until you're not so unlucky.
I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

[Samba]

i don't understand how people can be that mad and delusional x') this game is a freakin masterclass, and the "randomness" what gives its charm to rpgs of this style

[Syynx]

Originally posted by kexdd:

I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

It's about the journey, not the destination. If you're playing a tabletop RPG just to win you're going to be the most annoying person at the table.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by Flip:

Originally posted by Cy:

I absolutely hate the justification that "bad luck happens in real life, therefore bad RNG is realistic!" Video games are not supposed to accurately mimic real life, outside of sims anyway. And even sims have to make allowances to be fun.

That said, games to need to adhere to their own internal logic. Or internal realism, if you want to put it that way. BG is a fantasy world where people can use magic and be elves. It doesn't need to base anything off of what happens in the real world. But it does need to stay true to the systems it's built on. A roll of 20 needs to be the best roll, and a roll of 1 needs to be the worst. As long as the game sticks to the rules it lays out for the player, then a bit of randomness isn't a problem and, yes, it does encourage thinking on the fly.

The problem with randomness is when it's too random. To use the Xcom example, when the hit % says 95%, your shot should hit 95% of the time. Whether or not that's how percentages work in real life is irrelevant. From the information given to the player, we expect that shot to hit almost always. When you get three misses in a row with all of them having a 95% chance to hit, that's BS. It's too random and it doesn't allow the player to make tactical decisions based on the information they're provided. It makes the game not fun to play, which is the biggest sin a game can commit unless it's *specifically* marketed as being boring, or insanely difficult.

I think what makes the Xcom and turn based more infuriating is that when you look at it, people are standing still so in our minds, how can we miss!? If we look at things in motion it makes more sense. That's why I am a big fan of turn based that play out a section of action (like the battlefield games, Battlestar Galactica etc).

Well XCOM also has it so your guy is aiming right for them and then at the last second your guy shifts the gun and misses by a mile. It'd also probably have been better if those point blank nothing in the way shots that "missed" were instead deflected by like a shield or something instead of watching the character purposely miss.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by Agent Chieftain:

Agreed. It's a stupid system where a scrawny, 8 strength mage could potentially perform a feat of strength that a 20 strength fighter could also fail; both being at the mercy of luck's whim.

It's ridiculous. Give me the Fallout New Vegas method any day. Hard skill check thresholds. If you have the strength to lift 500lbs, then that's the end of it.

Ya that's one of the things I find dumb and don't like about the DND system, Charisma and such makes sense that it'd be a role, but certain things would require an enormous stretch of imagination to justify.

It's even worse when your characters backstory you made/chose goes to roll on something very simple that'd there would be no way in hell they could fail, and then they somehow fail.

[Red Shirt]

Originally posted by Maronchan:

People that think you can't miss stationary things, should remember the time they hit their thumbs with a hammer, instead of hitting the nail. Did that nail run away?

That hammer was clearly possessed by a demon.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by Maronchan:

People that think you can't miss stationary things, should remember the time they hit their thumbs with a hammer, instead of hitting the nail. Did that nail run away?

That's why you always role the dice before you go to hit the nail.

[nizzemancer]

Originally posted by Metadigital:

Originally posted by kexdd:

Thanks for not answering my question. As expected, you're the type I spoke about in my post.

You're not looking for an answer, though. You're just trying to broadcast that you don't like a genre to a community of people who play a game in that genre. I told you about the only thing you could be told - you adapt when bad luck happens. There isn't anything more to it than that.

I wouldn't bother, the kid is probably about 10 years old.

[Red Shirt]

Originally posted by Maronchan:

Originally posted by Red Shirt:

That hammer was clearly possessed by a demon.

Attack of the Demon Hammers! dododo doodoo...

Is that a new Syfy original series?

[Gigantoad]

It's not really luck-based. It's probability-based.

[Ephemerant]

Originally posted by Agent Chieftain:

Agreed. It's a stupid system where a scrawny, 8 strength mage could potentially perform a feat of strength that a 20 strength fighter could also fail; both being at the mercy of luck's whim.

It's ridiculous. Give me the Fallout New Vegas method any day. Hard skill check thresholds. If you have the strength to lift 500lbs, then that's the end of it.

Nat 20 on a skill check isn't supposed to be an automatic success, same with Nat 1's. A lot of DMs get that wrong.

[DietTTE]

This game isn't Luck based, it is skill based. Even if you fail on a dice roll during combat, that doesn't automatically mean it's game over It just forces you to change how you look at a situation. A failure to adapt to those changes is what makes it a game over.

Play well and you will do well, play terribly and you will do terribly. Simple as that.

[Red Shirt]

Originally posted by Maronchan:

Originally posted by Red Shirt:

Is that a new Syfy original series?

I'd watch it if it was, especially if it were made in the likes of the crazy 1950's comics/series.

Attack of the Killer Tomatooooes!

[Kiru]

How can people possibly enjoy a game based on luck? O_O

You are aware that dice, cards and board games have been around for a while and somehow continue to entertain people in literally every society around the globe since the time the first neolithic tribesmen decided to toss a bunch of carved bones instead of banging their heads together, right?

What is next on the agenda? Debating how anyone could want to wear a hat? How people can possibly enjoy drinking alcoholic beaverages? Maybe the unfathomable mystery of how some people seem to feel compelled to believe in the existence of god or the value of shiny metal plates and printed paperscraps?

Honestly folks, every time you think the intellectual level of the debate has hit rock bottom someone pops up to prove they can beat the mark. -_-

[nizzemancer]

Originally posted by kexdd:

How can anyone enjoy playing a game that can screw you over if you get unlucky? You could literally use the best strategies available, not make a single mistake, and miss most of your attacks, leading to an opponent's win and forcing you to retry until you're not so unlucky.
I guess people who have no skill love those type of games, because they will succeed eventually thanks to it being luck-based.

Yeah it's no ultimate test of skill like PAW Patrol Grand Prix or Nikelodeon Kart Racers is it?

Dumbass, troll elsewhere.

[Terron]

not a fan of poker eh? There is luck involved of course as its based on dice rolls but there is tons you can do outside of that that is in your control. To say its all luck based is just pure ignorance and shows your lack of understanding of the DnD system. You cannot run up to enemies and bash the square button to win. That wont work in DnD im afraid.