作者：Noel

游戏中运气元素的数量和类型会对游戏的整体感觉产生深远影响。有些游戏根本就没有运气元素，所有的变化均来自对手的行为（例如象棋），有些游戏则全部取决于运气（例如轮盘赌），多数游戏则介于两者之间，从而创造了无数种体验。

在此我们不打算过多探讨运气在电子游戏中的作用，因为它隐藏在计算机模拟的黑盒中，但与桌游一样，它可能对电子游戏所提供的体验产生极大影响。

对于我正在制作的游戏来说，运气是一个重要元素。我们制定了一些重要决定，这里涉及运气如何成为游戏的一部分，以及它能够为玩家创造哪种体验。希望本文对面临相似设计挑战的人有所帮助。

本文适用于任何类型的游戏（游戏邦注：包括桌游和电子游戏）。在此，我对运气的定义是植入游戏系统本身的随机效果，而不只是玩家互动。

非运气游戏

在不含运气的游戏中，玩家完全依靠技能取胜。这种游戏类似于体育项目。游戏就变成了一种紧张、直接竞争、考验玩家大脑的活动。这可以看出运气究竟会对游戏产生什么特殊影响。

非运气游戏的绝佳典型就是象棋或围棋等游戏。此外，《Puerto Rico》、《Caylus》等现代桌游（它们的最初布局就极少含有运气元素）也属于这种类型。

有趣的是，许多抽象游戏通常都不含运气元素，而游戏主题越明确，就越需要碰运气。

你幸运吗？

对多数桌游来说，含有一些运气元素对它们来说非常有好处。例如：

1.让游戏显得与众不同。

2.让玩家觉得自己有机会赢，即使自己现在并不领先。

3.移除获胜玩家所背负的心理压力（例如，“假如有人打败我，那也是因为他运气好罢了。”）

4.让没有赢的玩家觉得自己下次还有机会扳回一局（“下次我会来个绝地大反弹！”）

以上的第2、3、4点都有助于鼓励更多玩家参与游戏，让他们觉得自己有竞争力，即使现在没赢（或者即使他们实际上并没有竞争力）。这方面的一个例子就是扑克：每个人都觉得如果自己得到好牌，就能够打一手好牌。实际上，从长远来看并非如此，但扑克引进了不少短期内的确能够见效的运气元素。

上述几点总合起来的好处就在于，可以让不同技能水平的玩家参与到同一款游戏中，共同获得乐趣。对于那些需要多人参与的游戏来说，运气元素甚为关键。

运气的类型

至于那些添加了一些运气元素的游戏，它们可以选择不同的运气数量和类型创造不同效果。不幸的是，这也有可能因为混合了错误的运气类型，而创造了一种令人抓狂的体验。

*事后运气。这种运气要在玩家已经做出决定并执行一项操作后才会出现。它可能是通过抛硬币来决定玩家能否解琐一个箱子，或者摇骰子来决定你的敌人是否进攻一个国家。

*事前运气。事先运气包括玩家执行一项操作之前发生的随机事件。玩家可以先考虑这一因素再做决定。

*隐藏信息：隐藏信息是第三种运气类型。我有点犹豫到底该不该其单独分类，但它看起来又与其他两类不同。隐藏信息是指那些只有一些玩家知道，并且会影响其他玩家或者游戏积分情况的东西。

dice-troyes(from gamesfromwithin.com)

事后运气

我并不推崇事后运气。玩家已经执行了操作，但结果却是随机的（例如摇3颗6面的骰子）。这并不会增加玩家所拥有的选择，这在多数情况下并不有趣。这是一种可以为无聊的游戏增加一点特色的运气，但并不会让游戏变得更有趣。

如果使用不当，这种运气会极为令人抓狂。玩家会觉得自己选择的是“最佳”操作，但摇出来的结果却是适得其反。当然，也可能出现一些令其兴奋的结果，但这真的好玩吗？也许第一二次还行，但之后就很难说了。

通常我并不喜欢在自己的游戏中运用这种运气，但也有一些情况下，我还是会将其添加到游戏中。

第一种情况，当玩家可以在两项操作中进行选择，并且知道这两种操作的不同难度时。你选择掷一次骰子，重创敌人；也可以掷两次骰子，但如果两次的结果都是1，那么受伤的就是你的角色。在这种情况下，尽管这仍然是一种事后运气，玩家也需要提前做出有意义的决定，并且要衡量两种选择的利弊。

第二种情况，当玩家在游戏过程中多次重复某项操作时。此时每回操作本身的结果都没有什么变化，所有操作最终会在游戏过程中趋于平庸。这时引进的运气元素可以为游戏带来一点变化，在不影响游戏环节的前提下制造一点兴奋感。

如果玩家在游戏过程中能够慢慢改变其概率曲线，再结合这些运气元素，就可以随着游戏发展增加某项操作的成功机率，从而令玩家觉得自己变得更强大。这种做法常见于RPG和电子游戏。

添加一些影响操作结果的事后运气还可以给予玩家希望，让他们觉得自己能够取得成就，即使成功机率如此之小。而如果没有任何运气元素，他们就会觉得毫无希望，并对游戏丧失兴趣。与此同时，运气元素的存在也让玩家无法预测操作结果，这便于玩家无需耗心思去猜测结果而做出决定。

最后一种适用事后运气元素的情况就是非常短小的游戏。我喜欢《King of Tokyo》，尽管它完成是一场骰子游戏，含有大量事后运气元素。即使你真的只得到一些很糟糕的点数，这款游戏也不过10-15分钟，不会让你觉得浪费时间。而如果你在一个骰子上投入4个小时，那就真的太不值得了。

事后运气的负作用表现在人类对随机奖励的成瘾性，这也正是赌博和老虎机如此受欢迎的原因。游戏可以借用人类弱点来吸引玩家体验原本并不是非常有趣的活动。

有一种事后运气是购买收藏卡牌游戏的“提升牌组”（例如《万智牌》。购买纸牌是执行操作，但你打开时看到的牌却是随机的。相信多数《万智牌》玩家都可以作证，这种设计极富成瘾性。

事前运气

这种运气像事后运气一样可以增加许多随机性，但却可为游戏创造一种截然不同的体验。由于随机事件是发生于玩家行动之前，所以如果你觉得自己并没有得到理想的结果，你就可以选择在下次行动之前发挥最好的表现。

要说明这两种运气的不同，我们可以看看第一人称射击游戏中的加成道具。你打开门进入一个房间，看到一个神秘的礼盒。你不知道那是什么，打开看看发现是命值加成。如果此时你恰好命值不足，那就是个好事。也有可能你命值已满，所以这就是无用之物。这就是所谓的事后运气。

另外，还可以想象你打开房门，看到3个加成道具并排放在那里。你看得到它们各自的作用（命值、弹药和新武器）。你只要拿起其中一件，其他几个就会消失。这几个选择未必都很理想，但你可以根据自己当时的情况做出决定。这就是所谓的事前运气。

在桌游中，Stefan Feld可以说是事前运气的大师。他的许多游戏都包含此类限制你操作的运气机制。例如，在《The Castles of Burgundy》或者《Bora Bora》中，你掷骰子，并由这些骰子上的数字来决定你可以采取的行动。

任何与纸牌有关的游戏或多或少都会使用事前运气。你所拥有的纸牌是事前运气，之后你就要尽自己最大努力打一手好牌。

关于事先运气的一个极端例子就是最初游戏布局。这在游戏中只会发生一次，并且是在玩家采取行动之前，所以它有可能影响整个游戏过程。即使坚决反对游戏运气元素的玩家，通常也很容易接受这种随机性，因为他们可以在游戏过程中将其考虑入列。

事前运气并不像事后运气那么普遍，但和后者一样适用于多种情况。例如在角色攻击一些怪物时，通过掷骰子来决定是否要进攻，以及将产生多大杀伤力这种场景中，我们可以让玩家掷骰子，并以此来决定他们可以采取的操作，使之变成事先运气。比如，低点数的骰子表明玩家只能执行一些贴近地面的攻击，面高点数的骰子则意味着他们可以攻击高处飞的敌人。之后，玩家可以选择自己能够采取的攻击行为，或者采取防御姿态，或者溜之大吉。

事先运气的一个弊端在于，它会延伸每位玩家的操作。使用得越多，其呈现给玩家的选择就越多，游戏所需的时间可能就越长，所以最好将其运用于需要做决定的时候。如果不是，最好使用事后运气或不要采用运气元素。

shipyard(from gamesfromwithin.com)

隐藏信息

桌游的一个普遍例子就是隐藏游戏奖励。例如，在《Shipyard》中，玩家会实现一系列最终会让自己得分的目标。这些目标的存在原因有二：通过给予玩家不同目标，鼓励玩家专注于游戏的不同层面，而不只是重复同一系列的“最优”行动。它还鼓励玩家关注其他玩家的行动，并试图阻其他玩家过于领先。

另一个更有趣的例子是《Troyes》。每位玩家可通过一系列终极游戏目标获得额外点数，并且所有玩家还将根据这些目标获得分数。这会让玩家关注其他人的表现，并让这种行为变得更有意义。

隐藏信息的一个极端例子是《Discworld:Ankh-Morpork》，每位玩家在其中都有一个隐藏的获胜条件。在有人宣布自己获胜之前，大家都会各行其事，并亮出自己隐藏的胜利条件底牌。

隐藏信息越是重要，游戏的休闲和随机性就越强（因此游戏就可能越短）。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Luck In Games

by Noel

The amount and type of luck involved in a game has a profound impact on the feel of that game. Some games have no luck whatsoever, and all the variation comes from what the opponent does (chess), some of them are all about luck with not much else (roulette), and most of them fall somewhere in between, creating a wide spectrum of possible experiences.

We don’t talk much about the role of luck in video games, probably because it’s hidden away under the black box of the computer simulation, but just like with board games, it can have have a large impact in the type of experience the video game provides.

Thinking about luck in these terms was crucial for the game I’m working on (still unannounced!). We made some crucial decisions thinking about how luck was part of the game and kind what kind of experience it created for the player. I’m hoping this post helps people with similar design challenges.

This post should apply to any kind of game in general (board or video games). Next time, I’ll be focusing especially on luck in video games using this as a launching point for a deeper look. Also, I’m limiting the definition of luck to random effects built into the game system itself, and not due just to player interaction.

No-Luck Games

In games with no luck, players rely completely on their skill to win. In that way, they’re closer to sports. Games become an intense, straight competition, pitting players’ brains against each other. Right there it shows how luck (or in this case, the absence of luck) creates a very specific feel to a game.

Good examples of games without any luck are classics such as Chess or Go. There are also plenty of modern board games with no luck, like Puerto Rico, Caylus (they both have a minimal amount of luck in the initial tile order), or Hive.

It’s interesting that a lot of abstract games tend to have no luck, and the more thematic a game gets, the more they seem to rely on luck.
Are You Feeling Lucky?

Having some amount of luck in a game can be very beneficial for most kinds of board games. It accomplishes many things:

Keeps things varied from game to game

Keeps players feeling they have a chance to win even if they’re not currently ahead

Removes pressure from winning players (“If someone beats me, it’s because they had a lucky streak”)

Makes players who didn’t win feel they stand a chance next time they play (“next time I’ll catch a break and I can win!”)

Points 2, 3, and 4 all encourage more people to play the game and feel they’re competitive at it, even if they didn’t win (and even if they’re not really competitive). One of the best examples of this is poker: Everybody feels they can do great at poker, if only they get good cards. In reality, this is not true in the long term, but poker introduces plenty of luck that it really is true in the short term.

A consequence of all those points is that having some amount of luck allows players of different skills to participate in the same game and enjoy it equally. For games that rely on having multiple people looking to play it, it can be a big factor.

Types of luck

For games that choose to add some luck element, there’s a whole range of amounts and types of lucks they can use for different effects. Unfortunately, it’s also possible to mix the wrong type of luck with a given game feature and create a frustrating experience instead of an enjoyable one.

Post-action luck. This is luck introduced after the player has made a decision and executed an action. It can be in the form of flipping a coin to see if you unlock a chest, or rolling a dice to see if your armies invade a territory.

Pre-action luck. Pre-action luck consists of the random events that happen before the player performs an action. The player is able to take them into account and make a decision based on them.

Hidden information. Hidden information is the third kind of luck. I was a bit hesitant to include it as its own category first, but it seemed different enough from the other two to warrant being listed on its own. Hidden information refers to things that are known only to some players and will affect other players or the game scoring.

Dice troyes

Post-action luck

OK, I’m going to say it: I’m not a fan of post-action luck. The player has already made its action and the outcome is random (even if it’s based on a probability curve the player is aware of, like rolling 3 six-sided dice). Since it doesn’t add to the choices the player has, it’s mostly uninteresting. This is the kind of luck that can add a bit of spice to an otherwise boring game, it doesn’t do much to make the game more interesting.

When used incorrectly, this kind of luck is extremely frustrating. The player can feel they chose the “best” action, but they rolled double 1s and their move backfired on them. Sure, there was some tension knowing that could happen, but was it really fun? Maybe the first time or two, but probably not long term.

While I typically really don’t like this kind of luck in my games, there are some situations in which even I will add it can add some interest to the game.

The first case is when the player can choose to perform one action or another, being aware of the different probability curves for both actions. For example, you can roll a single die and deal that damage to an enemy, or you can roll two dice, but if you roll two 1s, your character gets hit instead. In a situation like that, even though it’s still post-action luck, the player was presented with a meaningful decision ahead of time and had to weight the risks and rewards of both options.

The second case where post-action luck can work is when the action is repeated many times over the course of a game. That way, the outcome of each individual action in themselves is not game-breaking, and all the actions will eventually add up to the average over the course of the game. Luck in this case introduces a bit of noise and slight excitement without affecting things much.

This is a good situation to combine with the ability for players to slowly change their probability curves over the course of the game. That way, they can increase their chances of success for an action as the game progresses, presenting the player with a way to feel more powerful. This is often used in RPGs and video games.

Having some kind of post-action luck that affects the outcome of an action can also give players hope that they can do something, even if those chances are small. Otherwise, without any luck involved, they would see the situation is hopeless and lose interest in the game. At the same time, having that luck element makes predicting every possible outcome nearly impossible, so it encourages players to make a decision without spending a long time figuring out an ideal outcome.

Finally, another situation where post-action luck isn’t always a bad thing is in very short games. I love King of Tokyo even though it’s a complete dice fest with lots of post-action luck. Even if you get some really bad dice rolls, a game maybe only lasts 10-15 minutes, so it didn’t feel like a complete waste of time. On the other hand, losing a 4-hour game to a dice roll can be extremely infuriating.

The dark side of post-action luck is the human addition to random rewards, which is the reason why gambling or slot machines are so popular. Games can exploit that human quirk to their advantage and hook players in a game that would otherwise not be very interesting or fun.

A very meta post-action luck is buying “booster packs” of collectable card games (like Magic The Gathering). Purchasing the cards is the action, and the luck happens when you open it and see which random cards were in the pack. As most ex-Magic The Gathering players can attest, this can be extremely addictive.

Pre-action luck

This type of luck can add just as much randomness as post-action luck, but creates a very different feel for the game. Since the random event happens before the player action, even if you didn’t get the ideal outcome you were hoping for, you can choose to do the best action given your situation.

To illustrate the difference, consider power-ups in a first-person shooter. You open the door to one room and there’s a mysterious gift package power-up. You have no idea what it is, you pick it up and… it turns out it was health. Maybe that’s great because you were low in health. Or maybe you were maxed out and it was useless. That’s post-action luck.

Alternatively, imagine you open that door and you see 3 power-ups side by side. You see what they’re going to give you (health, ammo, or a new weapon). As soon as you take one, the others go away. Maybe neither one of them is exactly the ideal, but you can make a decision and pick the best one for your situation. That’s pre-action luck.

In board games, Stefan Feld is the master of pre-action luck. A lot of his games involve some kind of luck mechanism that limits your actions. For example, in The Castles of Burgundy or Bora Bora, you roll dice, and the numbers on those dice determine which actions you can take.

Without going that far, just about any games that involves drawing cards from a deck and having a “hand” of cards uses pre-action luck. The cards you’re dealt are the pre-action luck, and then you have to do the best you can with those cards.

An extreme type of pre-action luck is initial game layout. That happens only a single time during the game, and before players make any actions, so it has the potential to affect the full course of the game. Even players who are adamantly opposed to luck in games, are often willing to accept game setup randomness because it can be fully taken into account during the game without any surprises.

Pre-action luck isn’t as common in games as post-action luck, but it could be used just about anywhere that post-action luck is used. Consider the classic situation of a character attack some monsters and rolling a set of dice that determine whether he hits and how much damage it does. We could change that into pre-action luck by having players roll the dice (either all at once or separately), and having the dice restrict the options of what they can do. For example, low rolls on one dice could indicate that they can only do an attack close to the ground, while high rolls means they can attack flying enemies. Then the player can choose which of those actions to take, or maybe he can instead take a defensive stance or run away.

The main downside of pre-action luck is that it can extend every player action. The more it’s used, and the more possible choices it presents to the player, the longer the game might take, so it’s best to save it for times where the decisions really matter. If not, either post-action luck or no luck at all, might be better choices.

Hidden information

The most common example in board games is hidden end of game bonuses. For example, in Shipyard players get a set of goals that will score them points at the end of the game. There are two reasons for these goals: By giving each player different goals, it encourages players to focus on different aspects of the game instead of fighting over the same set of “optimal” actions. It also encourages players to pay attention to what other players are doing, and potentially try to anticipate or even block other players from getting too far ahead in their goals.

An even more interesting case is the game Troyes (one of my favorites!). Not only does each player get a set of end-of-game goals to get extra points, but all players, not just the player holding them, will be scored based on those goals. That makes paying attention to other players and trying to guess what they’re doing even more important.

At the extreme end of hidden information there are games like Discworld: Ankh-Morpork, in which each player gets a hidden winning condition. Players go about doing their actions until someone announces at the beginning of their turn that they have won the game, and they reveal their hidden victory condition card.

The higher the importance of the hidden information, the more casual and random the game becomes (and so, the shorter the game should be ideally).（source：gamesfromwithin）