Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you buy through them, The Ludarium may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, The Ludarium earns from qualifying purchases. How affiliate links work here.
The luck vs skill in board games argument usually gets framed as a dial. Turn it toward luck and you get Candy Land. Turn it toward skill and you get chess. Most games sit somewhere in between, and people argue about where their favorite belongs.
The dial is the wrong picture. The games that stay on shelves for decades, that get played by children and grandparents and tournament players alike, do not split the difference. They separate the two. Luck decides what situation you face. Skill decides what you do about it. Once you see that pattern, you will find it in almost every durable design from Backgammon to Wingspan.
What is the difference between input and output randomness?
Game designers have a pair of terms for this. They are worth learning because they cut through most of the arguing.
Input randomness happens before you decide. The dice are rolled, the cards are dealt, the tiles are drawn, and then you choose what to do with the result. In Catan, the dice decide which hexes produce this turn, and then every player decides how to spend what they got.
Output randomness happens after you decide. You choose an action, and then a random event determines whether it worked. In Risk, you choose to attack, and then the dice decide whether your armies live or die.
Both are luck. They feel completely different. Input randomness hands you a problem. Output randomness overrules your answer. The first invites skill. The second can erase it.
This is not a rule that output randomness is bad. Risk has been in print since the 1950s, and plenty of beloved games roll to hit. But designers who want a game to reward skill while still feeling fresh every time lean heavily on input randomness, and it is no accident.
Why does pure skill not last at the dinner table?
Chess is the obvious counterexample, so it is worth addressing directly. Chess has no luck at all and has lasted well over a thousand years.
Chess also has a problem every chess player knows. Between two players of different strength, the better one wins. Essentially always. That makes chess a superb sport and a poor family game. A serious player cannot play a meaningful game against a seven-year-old without throwing it, and children can tell.
Pure skill games create a hierarchy at the table, and the hierarchy is stable. Over many evenings, the same person wins. People stop asking to play.
Luck breaks the hierarchy. Not by making the better player lose often, but by making it possible. A good player should win more. A good player should not win every time. The difference between those two sentences is the entire reason luck exists in game design.
Why does pure luck not last either?
The opposite failure is just as common and more boring. In a game with no meaningful decisions, nothing you do matters, so there is nothing to talk about, nothing to get better at, and no reason to play a second time except habit.
Candy Land is the classic example because it has literally zero decisions. You draw a card and move. Children enjoy it because they are learning colors and turn-taking. Adults endure it. Nobody plays it by choice once there is any alternative.
Many roll-and-move games sit near this end. These games can still be social. They cannot be interesting, and interest is what brings people back on purpose.
New pieces like this, free, in the newsletter.
How do the games that last split the difference?
They do not split it. They assign it. Luck generates the situation, and the situation is different every time. Skill handles the situation, and better handling wins more often.
A few examples of the pattern in action.
Catan. Dice determine which hexes produce. Nobody controls that. But where you built your settlements, what you traded for, and when you expanded all determine how much a given roll helps you. Two players with identical rolls can have wildly different outcomes. The dice set the problem.
Ticket to Ride. Your destination tickets are drawn at random. The train cards you draw are partly random. But which routes to claim, when to take the risk of drawing new tickets, and how to read what opponents are building are all decisions. Good players consistently finish higher.
Wingspan. The birds you draw are random, and so are the dice in the birdfeeder. Which birds to play, in which habitat, in what order, is a deep sequencing puzzle. A weak player can get a great draw and still lose to a strong player with a mediocre one.
Azul. The tiles that appear in the factory displays are drawn blind from a bag. What you take, what you leave for the next player, and where you place it is a tight spatial puzzle with almost no luck once the tiles are revealed.
Backgammon. Perhaps the cleanest example in history. Every roll is random. Every decision about which checkers to move is skill. Backgammon has been played for thousands of years, is a serious gambling and tournament game, and can still be enjoyed by a child, because a lucky night is always possible.
In each of these, the luck arrives first and the skill is applied afterward. You cannot complain that the game overruled your good decision. The only question is what you did with the hand you got.
What does this do to the feel of losing?
This is the part most people underrate. The structure of luck in a game changes how losing feels, and how losing feels determines whether people come back.
In an output-randomness game, losing often feels like being robbed. You made the right call, the dice said no. That is frustrating in a way that lingers.
In an input-randomness game, losing has a different texture. You can look back and see the decision you would make differently. Or you can see that you played well and the draw was against you, which is easier to accept because the draw happened before you acted, not after. Either way, there is something to talk about on the way home.
Winning changes too. A win in a game with input randomness feels like yours. You were handed a situation and you handled it.
This is why the pattern matters for groups, not only for designers. A game that produces good losers produces a group that keeps playing. If you have ever wondered why some nights end with everyone replaying the last turn out loud and others end quietly, our article on how to be a good loser picks up that thread.
How much luck is the right amount?
There is no number, but there is a useful test. Over about ten games between the same two people, the stronger player should win clearly more than half and clearly less than all.
If the stronger player wins nine or ten, the game is a skill test, and the weaker player will stop wanting to play. If they win five or six, the game is mostly luck, and the stronger player will stop caring. Somewhere around seven is where most durable family and hobby games land, and it is not a coincidence that this is also the range where both players still want a rematch.
Designers tune this in several ways:
- Volume of random events. More dice rolls average out; fewer rolls swing harder. A game with one dramatic roll is luckier than a game with fifty small ones.
- Mitigation tools. Letting players reroll, hold cards, or choose among several random options keeps the randomness as input rather than output. Wingspan’s ability to reset the birdfeeder is this kind of valve.
- Information timing. Revealing random results before the decision rather than after moves luck from output to input without removing it.
- Scoring breadth. When points come from many sources, no single lucky draw decides the game. This also quietly works as a catch-up mechanic, since the leader cannot lock up every avenue at once.
What should a designer take from this?
If you are building a game and want it to last, the practical checklist looks like this.
- Put the randomness before the decision wherever you can.
- Make the random situation different enough each time that memorized play does not work.
- Give players at least one tool to mitigate bad draws, so they feel agency even in a rough spot.
- Make sure a strong player beats a weak one most of the time, and a weak player can still beat a strong one occasionally.
- Check how losing feels in playtests. If people blame the game instead of themselves or the draw, look at your output randomness.
The old dial framing asks how much luck to add. The better question is where to put it.
FAQ
What is the difference between luck and skill in board games?
Luck is any outcome the player does not control, like dice or card draws. Skill is the quality of decisions a player makes. Most lasting games use luck to create varied situations and skill to resolve them.
Is a game with dice always luck-based?
No. Backgammon uses dice on every turn and is a deeply skilled game, because the dice determine options and the player chooses among them. What matters is whether the randomness comes before or after the decision.
What is input randomness?
Randomness that occurs before a player decides, such as drawing a hand of cards and then choosing what to play. It tends to reward skill because the player responds to the random result.
What is output randomness?
Randomness that occurs after a player decides, such as declaring an attack and then rolling to see if it succeeds. It adds drama but can override good decisions, which some players find frustrating.
Games that hand you a problem and let you solve it are the ones people keep asking to play. The Ludarium newsletter sends new pieces on how those games are built and why they hold a table, with news from the Indianapolis lounge as it comes. Subscribe at theludarium.com. The game is the reason. The people are the point.
Get the next one in your inbox.
Board game picks, strategy, and shelf advice from The Ludarium.