Is risk management a skill?

(This topic was inspired by the Trashdome discussion of Magic versus Cosmic Encounter.)

Is risk management a skill? Or are games with random elements only won by chance?

I believe that most random games still have certain odds that can be calculated, and that the more skillful players will make better decisions about how much risk to put on a single die roll or card draw. But it depends on the nature of the random elements.

A deck of cards has fixed quantities of whatever cards, and the pool of available cards is gradually depleted as cards are drawn. But maybe those cards are periodically shuffled, or there is a mechanic for extra draws or discards or even searching the deck for a specific card.

Rolling a single die for a particular outcome is random, especially if every possible roll yields a different result. But if rolling that single die is skewed towards a specific outcome (1-4 is failure, 5-6 is success), or if multiple dice are rolled and then added together, then someone can reasonably calculate the likelihood of one outcome instead of another.

I find manageable amounts of randomness to actually provide a better simulation than a game without randomness. Real life, while not necessarily random, is chaotic with all kinds of unexpected turns of events. But precautions can be taken against these random events, with insurance or emergency plans or even just file backups.

It's definitely an important skill in some games and at some levels. Take professional Texas Hold 'Em, for example. If you don't have that skill, you're not going to make a lot of money.

Brilliant.

Yes, risk management is a skill.

Sometimes you can just be jacked by dice, or draw the wrong cards or whatever. But unless you're playing war, or "roll high", knowing what your chances are is a big deal.

Beyond understanding what the probabilities are, the real art (both gamewise and outside of games) is in understanding "what are the consequences of success vs the consequences of failure"?

If it's low risk, high-reward, then great. If you're hinging your entire game on a 50-50 die roll (or worse), maybe you're doing it wrong. If you fail it, what's Plan B?

Those are the decisions that make the hobby fun, and make work so damn stressful.

Please quit using up the subject matter of my next blog post.

Sag.

Type faster Sag, type faster!

Also take note that players around the table will have different approaches to risk. Some will be more risk-prone, others more risk-averse. So there is also skill in making that work for you.

the barefoot killer wrote:

It's definitely an important skill in some games and at some levels. Take professional Texas Hold 'Em, for example. If you don't have that skill, you're not going to make a lot of money.

Same can be said for Sue You!. If you can negotiate, great. If not, you have a 50/50 chance of losing. Appeal, and your chances go to 1/3. Fail both, you pay a shiteload of money in damages, plus court and appeal costs. Granted there are cards that do mitigate (or intensify) the damages, but what it boils down to is risk management.

The heart and soul of this issue is the removal of the "generally accepted correct move in this situation." GACMITS isn't the best acronym in the world but for the moment it's what I'm stuck with. Without unpredictability in the game there is no way for a player to place their signature on their gameplay, to choose their own path. What remains is a committee decision on what each player should do on their turn, and very often there's consensus.

What I find amusing is when people look at the turn of a card or a chit pull that happens prior to their decision as a "chaotic element." It's not. It's prior luck. It has an arbitrary aspect, but it's missing the risk management part. It's like getting yesterday's weather prediction. Nothing of interest comes into the game from prior luck -- the committee still convenes, the decision is made the same way and everyone pats each other on the back. It's removed the player's control, taken their destiny out of their hands.

Vialiy's point is the quintessential issue about risk management in games in two different ways, the way you want to play your game, and any instincts you might have about how others will play their game. Both give you control of your own fate, they bring you into the action instead of pushing you out. Most on another popular boardgaming web site would speak of it otherwise -- I just had this conversation there and got the usual short-sighted rebuttals.

Now I have to give Vialiy credit for that part of what I was going to write . . . thanks a lot a$$hole.

Sag.

It is most definitely a skill. Understanding your level of risk in relation to other players' and their likely response to the risk level is a key skill (joint probability distribution in work).

The people who give credit to the information prior to their turn is no different than those who bitch about people not playing blackjack right and "taking their cards". Get a fucking clue -- those decisions do not change your luck.

Related, people play many games in such a manner that they bitch and moan when you don't make the best move or they could have made a better one. Another point that often is overlooked is that a series of GACMITS doesn't necessarily equate to the overall best move for the game. I find it interesting when you can make a set of "suboptimal moves" (in terms of the GACMIT) turn into a winning condition.

Obviously. Also, psychologically dealing with luck is a skill as well. When my opponent gets a bad run of die rolls, it gives them an excuse to lose. When I get a bad run of die rolls and bounce back, they think "geez, *nothing* can stop him!". I win either way.

Yes.

Not only is it most definately a skill, but I'm increasingly convinced that it's what I enjoy most on a boardgame, providing it has been integrated into the game in a clever manner. Hell, Twilight Struggle is virtually nothing *but* risk management.

I had an article planned about this, so now not only has Southernman stolen my thunder, but Sag has already out-analysed me. Thanks a lot, ar$eholes.

I'd have to say that it's a skill.

We'll take the simple game - Blackjack. It's all about a risk-reward strategy. Typically you are not going to double down when the Dealer has a face card should or you have over 11. But blackjack seems to be a game of consistency. If you're going to do the crazy hare brained things, do them consistently.

Wargames are all about managing your risks. You gather your troops and try to hold the ground that's advantageous to you and attack when you're pieces are aligned right. Yes, those battles come down to a die roll but you should be able to control the die rolls.

Even games like Risk and Monopoly have some degrees of risk management. In Monopoly, you might take the risky strategy of mortgaging a ton of properties to get houses on those monopolies that you do own. sometimes this can leave you short of cash, so you are hoping that you don't land on other monopolies. If it works out for you, great.....

The freaky thing is that I just had this conversation a week ago on a Kingsburg thread about the weak winter battles -- someone had indicated they were always pushovers. I responded with this --

With just one play in I have to admit that my only point of disagreement with the design was the low level of risk in the battles -- this coming after a game where the rolls were 1, 1, 2, 3 -- very little help from the die. It's very simple to handicap this to make for a tougher play. Personally, I'd recommend against taking the difference of two dice and adding 1 as this reduces variability. Simply lifting the strength of the opponent by a couple of points makes more sense to me, and it's a very easy house rule to implement.

I'm not a fan of worker placement at all, but it works well in Kingsburg. The battles at the end of the year add a risk management factor to the game that is very much lacking in other titles in the same family. These push-your-luck opportunities make the game more intense and provide an avenue for players that are behind the leader to catch up -- not through some artificial means that slows down the leader or gives the trailer a boost, but from the undertaking of additional risk in an attempt to gain additional reward. That is good gaming in my book and Kingsburg has it at the heart of its system.

What remains (in Kingsburg) is to make the risk/reward binding a bit tighter so that there is a significant enough opportunity to play a different game from the others, i.e., to invest in risk. As the battles stand now, there is very little risk, and hence very little opportunity for reward. That's OK for first games, but keeps seasoned players from playing their own game.

Part of Ticket to Ride's strength is the destination tickets -- the ability to go for it at the end of the game and come from behind through your own decisions. This empowers the player -- gives them control over their own destiny. I feel that in Kingsburg as well, but the battles need to be beefed up to make it really work. With any luck you'll get T2R sales numbers.

Add four to the card value and use a d10 instead. That's when you'll see people sweat.

Sag.

The game designer tuned in (and kept an appropriate tone and spoke exceptionally well -- remarkably rare in my experience) and indicated that the upcoming expansion includes a way to reduce the risk in the combats -- replacing the 1d6 roll with chips that you receive at the beginning of the game. This means more reliance on resource management and less on risk management. The crowd went wild! In a game about dice that pretty much amount to luck that you react to (as opposed to risk management's proactive requirements) people are so concerned about this one die roll that they felt the game needed to be "fixed." Being the long-winded jerk that I am I railed against it and indicated how disappointed I was at the concept and to be fair the designer was gracious about it. He's knows where the centerline of his audience is and he's releasing material that serves them well.

Not one single thumb for me in spite of half a dozen posts debating technical detail and offering options for consideration. At the same time in another thread I got 140 thumbs for a thread complaining about geekmod. Honestly, it's like trying to hold an adult conversation at the children's table.

That's why I'm here. Someone may tell me I'm full of crap, but they follow it up with a rebuttal that has actual content. Over there you just get stupid looks.

Sag.

It's a skill. Of course it's a skill. I can't even see an argument against it. Poker alone puts the lie to that question.

Shellhead's point is excellent: a manageable amount of randomness gives a much better simulation than a game without randomness. The question for any game is whether it has the right amount. It's very easy to get that balance wrong, I think.

And, like Matt, risk management is what I enjoy most in a board game, too.


Sagrilarus wrote:

Without unpredictability in the game there is no way for a player to place their signature on their gameplay, to choose their own path.

I think this is overstating the case quite a bit. Chess has no unpredictability in its mechanics, but master players certainly place their signature on their gameplay. Even weaker players do too, in a way.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Chess has no unpredictability in its mechanics, but master players certainly place their signature on their gameplay. Even weaker players do too, in a way.

Once they clear the 32-move programmed opening.