Recently I was given an assignment by my professor to think of a small research question to make a mock-paper for, so we can practice reading existing game design literature and practice writing our own articles. I’ve had a lot of possible topics floating around my head, and this topic is one I decided I just had to get out of my head even if it didn’t end up being part of a class assignment.

Intro

The relationship between Luck and Skill is a topic of frequent discussion in game-centric groups. Whether it be game designers arguing that the inclusion of cards and dice does not make a game “less skillful”, or players arguing whether their success was a result of careful mind-games or sheer dumb luck, the connection or lack thereof of these two sectors is seen as important to games as a whole. As such I’d like to define what is luck in games, what is skill in games, and with these two definitions in hand, see if we can see any possible clashes between the two.

We’ll start by creating the definitions, less to say “my definition of luck creates this problem with my definition of skill,” but rather to discuss what we really mean when we say “luck” or “skill” and to get these questions regarding the nature of the two ideas out of the way.

Defining Luck

As of the writing of this post, Merriam-Webster defines luck as such:

1. a. a force that brings good fortune or adversity.

   b. the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual.

2. favoring chance (also : success)

Which I think are very lackluster definitions for our purposes, as they just move the issue from defining “luck” to defining “chance.” Similarly - wouldn’t someone’s own ability be “a force that brings good fortune”? I wouldn’t consider knowing the answer to a quiz question as “being lucky,” personally. Other definitions I found ran into the same issues, so let’s try to define “luck” in the context of gameplay on our own.

So what is luck? While the definitions above are somewhat lackluster they do still convey what people percieve to be luck: some sort of external force bringing a (typically) helpful result into fruition. Luck is seen as outside one’s own control, with people being described as “lucky” in the same way one might be “tall” or “talented”: things you are born with, not things you acquire for yourself.

In the context of games, I think defining luck as bringing upon necessarily “good” outcomes is limiting, as then we have the question of what counts as a “good” outcome or which outcome is better than another, so I suggest we change that idea to merely a “desired” outcome as you might want something that isn’t necessarily good for you and still see yourself as “lucky”. So for now luck is some sort of external force bringing upon a desired outcome.

But what “external force” are we talking about? If a friend starts moving my chess pieces midgame that’s not luck, it’s flagrant cheating and I’d get booted out of the tournament for doing so. It’s an external force, sure, but it’s not luck. For luck to be present, we need some point where this “force” can manifest and influence the results without being percieved as violating the existing rules or gamestate in our favor: uncertainty! Luck manifests when we percieve that some sort of uncertain event has played itself in our favor, and in such a degree that it feels like some external force is bending the rules of probability. So luck is an external force that influences uncertainty to bring upon a desired outcome.

Now we’ve moved the issue from “what is luck” to “what is uncertainty.” To quickly patch that hole up, in my opinion uncertainty is any time a player does not have total information regarding what is occuring. Whether it be due to that information not being possible for the player to access (a deck of cards’ order), or that information being percieved as unreasonable for the player to have access to (the perfect moves in a game of chess), this is percieved as uncertain.

Also, “an external force” feels to me somewhat… odd. Maybe a little religious in tone? Personally, I think we better un-anthromorphise this definition. As luck is seen as something inherent to a person, object, or idea (a lucky day, a lucky number, a lucky dice) we couldn’t really define it as being an “ability” as it implies intent by the given object to cause luck to occur. As such, a “trait” of this object would probably be a better way of phrasing it.

Finally we must note that luck doesn’t necessarily have to… actually exist. Entirely normal random probabilty can be seen as “lucky” if framed in specific ways, unlike other traits which are more objective: someone who’s 1.9m is not subjectively taller than someone who’s 1.5m. The same is true for the uncertainty present within the game: if I do a random move in chess against a much better player and accidentally achieve a good result, I would be seen as lucky despite chess having perfect information available to both players, so the uncertainty has to be merely percieved to exist.

And so, we land at our definition of luck, in the context of players:

A percieved trait which influences the outcome of scenarios with imperfect information to bring upon a desired outcome.

You may note that this definition of luck is constrained to the idea of something having luck or someone being lucky, and leaves out of the equation a definition for what is a “game of luck”. We can extrapolate that it would be “a game where someone who has the trait of being lucky is often successful,” but for the sake of avoiding collective headaches going forward, I think we should also define that intepretation of luck.

If a trait of influencing uncertainty allows one to succeed more often, that means that whatever it is that they’re partaking in involves an influential degree of uncertainty. Amount does not quite matter, as the slots have only one “roll of the dice” and they’re agreed to be very luck-based. However, I do not think our definition should require a subjective “influence” of luck to properly be considered a “luck-game”, as it makes it much murkier in my opinion.

So, we land at our definition of luck in the context of games:

Aspects of games which are percieved to involve imperfect information. The greater the effect the imperfect information can have on the result, the more luck-based.

Defining Skill

Going to Mirriam-Webster, we get the following definitions of skill:

1. a. the ability to use one’s knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance.

   b. dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks.

2. a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability.

And I think these are pretty decent definitions, all things considered. Skill is generally described as the (typically positive) ability to complete a task in a desired manner. The more complex the method of completion, the more “skillful.” However note how being “skilled” is not merely the fact that you have this ability to complete the task, it also assumes prior knowledge and learning: when someone has great ability when they just started learning something, we ascribe it to “talent” or “beginner’s luck” and separate it from our idea of skill.

Additionally, skill is not percieved to be a trait, but rather an ability of conscious beings. You can’t have a “skilled blade” unless you are using metaphor to anthropomorphise the blade.

So our definition of skill in players would be:

An ability to bring forward a desired outcome, acquired through training or study.

Similarly, if a game is said to involve “a lot of skill”, it’s typically a game where the more you study and practice it, the greater your ability compared to someone who has not; your ability to achieve a desired result consistently is determined mostly by your decisionmaking rather than any outside force, and the more consistently the “more skilled” player can win, the more skillful the game.

So the definition for skill in games would be:

Aspects of games where training or study can increase a player’s ability to bring forth a desired outcome. The greater the ability of a given player to consistently bring upon a desired result through practice, the more skillful.

The Crosspoints of Skill and Luck

Now let’s compare our two definitions and see what the core differences are:

Aspects of games which are percieved to involve imperfect information. The greater the effect the imperfect information can have on the result, the more luck-based.

Aspects of games where training or study can increase a player’s ability to bring forth a desired outcome. The greater the ability of a given player to consistently bring upon a desired result through practice, the more skillful.

On first glance, it seems like the two definitions are in direct conflict as one of them involves consistency and the other involves uncertainty, and in the micro scale that would be correct: if you increase the luck in any given gameplay mechanic you necessarily decrease the skill, and vice-versa; if you increase how wildly the result of a game can swing based on something neither player can predict, you lower the ability of any given player to guarantee a desired outcome.

However, this does not mean that skill at luck are at a fundamental conflict, as luck can also increase the skill involved in a game on a macro scale. If skill is how consistently a player can guarantee success, we can extrapolate that if a player can guarantee success from varying states of gameplay (instead of only displaying skill from a single state of gameplay), they are more skillful as they have a greater ability to bring forth their desired result, and the game by extension would allow for greater displays of skill. As such, luck can force players to handle scenarios that they would otherwise entirely try to avoid, forcing them to learn and handle more of the game.

Consider the game of Poker - a game that is fundamentally a roll of the dice, but has an incredible show of skill involved. The reason is because the element of luck and the element of skill are distinct from one another, (the luck is in the cards, and the skill is in mindgames/bluffing,) and the element of luck causes the element of skill to vary between games (there would be no need to bluff if the cards were deterministic).

Summary

• “Luck” is the amount of influence that elements involving percieved imperfect information have on a given game.
• “Skill” is a player’s ability to consistently bring upon a desired outcome.
• While the two ideas clash on a micro scale, they actually compliment eachother when considering the game as a whole.