- Luck-based games require a different type of strategic thinking.
There's often a misconception that dice games or luck based games involve less strategy. I often read on this subreddit "I like strategy games rather than luck-based games." Certainly some dice games have no strategy. But a well designed luck based game has a lot of strategy. It's probabilistic strategy. For example, there may be two different possible moves. One is more high risk high reward, and the other is lower risk lower reward. In order to determine which move to make, you would need to determine your current chance of winning the game. Usually if you're far behind, a high risk strategy actually increases your chances of winning. So you have to know the percentages and constantly be calculating them based on your current position in the game.
Games that involve little to no luck take this type of thinking out of the game. Those games are more about thinking about moves in advance rather than calculating percentages.
- Luck-based games reward process-thinking over results-thinking.
In luck-based games, sometimes you made all the right moves but you still lose. Some people hate that and that's why they hate luck based games. There are people who are fixated on results over process and its difficult for them to enjoy luck based games. I think that there's a deeper level of thinking in order to be able to say, "i made all the right moves and I'm not going to change my strategy next time I play even though I didn't win."
- Luck-based games simulate real-life better than deterministic games.
Games that are largely deterministic like Gloomhaven or Blood Rage just don't have the feel of real life. They're too mechanical. They're missing something. Real life is not like that. In real life, usually there are a lot of things we do not know and do not have control over. Luck-based games simulate that through cards or dice.
- I can try my best in a luck-based game against inferior opponents and both people will still have fun.
I can't play Blood Rage with new players even though I really enjoy the game because it's difficult for me to "fake" losing. Not only do I have to purposely make the wrong move, but I have to "act" like I didn't. I don't like lying and I don't like faking things. On top of that, I'm not doing what I want to do in board games, which is use my strategic thinking to make the best moves. Deterministic games take all of the fun away when playing against players with two vastly different skill levels.
When playing luck-based games, I can try my hardest and know that the new player still has a 30% chance of winning against me if everything goes right for them. I don't need to fake anything. And when I make all the right moves and lose, my opponent is ecstatic. That's great for them knowing there's a chance for them to win. For example Imperial Assault. I can play my best, but a newer player will still have some chance. And likely they'll have a lot of great moments provided by die rolls even if they do lose.
Caveat: Luck-based games that have too much luck are not fun for me. There needs to be the right balance where strategy and making the right moves plays a large part in the game. I would argue that the right balance is that better player should win around 65-75% of the time and a pro should win against a newbie 95% of the time