Does randomness make strategy games feel more fair for newbies vs experts?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The version of the game I'm currently working on uses no randomness. This is a problem though, because it means the better player always wins, which could be discouraging for new players. One solution is to use a ranking system and always have the weaker player go first, this way they are always one turn ahead of the better player.

Do you think randomness helps or hurts perceived fairness in a strategy game?

Randomness Helps perceived fairness

Randomness makes it even worse

Other//see results

[queenofcardio]

I think randomness makes the game fairer.

I'm not great at strategy games.. Sometimes it takes me a while to figure out a plan and look for potential clues.

So my openentants are more likely to win against me..

Randomness would help me. It would give me a shot at winning in areas that I struggle in.

[abc3643]

It does. This is one reason why games like Monopoly and Backgammon can still end in incredible upsets but the good players who are smart about probabilities will usually do better on average... certainly so for Backgammon than Monopoly which is more random.

[AI Opinion]

Randomness usually helps perceived fairness for newbies 😊

Skilled players already win more often through planning. Light RNG gives weaker players “puncher’s chance” moments, which feel exciting and less demoralizing.

But it must be controlled: predictable odds, no instant-loss swings, and tools to mitigate luck. Pure determinism plus “weaker goes first” can feel rigged or boring, while smart randomness feels dramatic and fair. 🎲

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Alrighty, I'll wait for a few human responses, and if they agree, I'll change back to the RNG system I was working on.

[NathanDavis]

or... it might make them more confused...

[strateguy632]

1st,