RNG vs skill: a false competition
Hearthstone often called an RNG fiesta, and the prevailing wisdom is that it takes less skill to play than other TCGs/CCGs because of it. I’m not here to argue whether HS, MtG, LoR etc. is the more skilful since as far as I know the …
Hearthstone often called an RNG fiesta, and the prevailing wisdom is that it takes less skill to play than other TCGs/CCGs because of it. I’m not here to argue whether HS, MtG, LoR etc. is the more skilful since as far as I know the concept of ‘skill’ cannot be quantified, so we’d be stuck using opinions and gut feelings which get us nowhere.
No, the purpose of this thread is to make the case that RNG, in HS as well as other (card) games, should not be regarded with the surface-level analysis that it usually receives. Namely: “you have less control of the outcome, therefore that outcome requires less skill”. To escape the ever-present debate of whether RNG in deck order counts, I'll focus more on randomness outside of card games, which helps shed a different light on things.
Chess and ‘the bamboozle play’
I start with chess: a board game where 1 player goes up against another in a fair, zero-RNG battle of wits and planning. Well, no RNG except for who gets to go first anyway. In a sense we can view chess like a card game mirror match where both players’ decks start on the board. At every point in the game you know exactly what you are up against and you know exactly how every piece is going to behave.
In such a deterministic environment you can plan several turns ahead, working out what you want to do, how you want to do it, and devising counter-plays for your opponent’s inevitable counter-plays. It’s all very skilful… if you are a good player and that description applies to you. I am not a good chess player: I know the rules, but I’m not interested enough in the game to invest the time and effort to make chess a skill of mine. Because of this, I know that if I play against a good player, my odds of winning are very small (which frankly acts as a deterrent against me wanting to play the game, and is certainly a good argument for why HS has so much RNG: to let bad players still enjoy it. But I digress).
However, while I know I’m bad at playing chess conventionally, I also know I can help even the odds by reducing my opponent’s ability too. Which brings me to what I call ‘the bamboozle play’. The idea is simple: do something the opponent won’t expect yet doesn’t do you any harm either. Often this involves moving a piece that still leaves all your key pieces protected but has no influence on the current points of tension on the board. I basically pick a piece at random and as long as it can do something safe I’m happy to move it.
The upshot of the bamboozle play is that it leaves the opponent unsure what I’m going to do, thereby negating a lot of their advantage in being able to predict future turns. The bamboozle play itself is not especially skilful; yes, I must know the rules well enough to know what is safe to do, but it doesn’t go a whole lot deeper than that. However, the very idea of the bamboozle play is quite skilful since it is designed specifically to counter my main disadvantage.
Thus, by feeding a bit of randomness into how I play, I am a more skilful player than I would be without it. Of course I could choose to be even more skilful by actually learning to play chess properly, but I have better things to do than that.
The genius of Monte Carlo simulations
Moving away from games, let’s talk about using RNG in a serious setting: to run scientific simulations and therefore better understand the world around us. The simulations in question, named after the casinos in the city of Monte Carlo (so it’s got some connection to card games through that at least), choose to ignore the known equations provided by mathematics and/or physics in favour of generating a heck of a lot of random numbers instead.
Perhaps the simplest example is calculating the value of the mathematical constant pi (i.e. the pi in the area of a circle = pi * r^2). The way to do this is to snugly put a circle inside a square so the circle’s diameter is equal to the square’s width, 2r = w, and then fire randomly generated vectors at it, each landing at a position (x,y) inside the square. Do this a lot of times, then at the end count what fraction of those vectors landed inside the circle. That will equal the ratio of circle area to square area (pi*(r/w)^2 = pi/4), so multiply it by 4 et voila! You have calculated pi!
You can do much more sophisticated things than this, and I personally have a lot of experience in running Monte Carlo simulations of polymers or swimming bacteria which need to interact in complex ways through the fluid they are in. Each random number does something that has no physical meaning, but real physics can be made to come out if you generate enough of them in the right way.
The point is that RNG can be extremely clever at a statistical level, but that only becomes apparent after a long time. If you focus on individual random numbers, then it looks uncontrolled and you might mistake the end result as an accident of chance when it is in fact just as likely to happen as if you used deterministic equations to get there.
Relating these to Hearthstone
Now to bring things back to RNG in HS.
The bamboozle play can be most easily related to random card generation, letting you do something the opponent won’t expect and plan for. That could be entirely accidental, which is often the case with casting a random spell or summoning a random minion, in which case it is probably not skill or wisdom that led you to do it. Even here though there are examples where it does involve skill, e.g. recognising your only path to victory lies in summoning a taunt.
The discover keyword provides the cleanest demonstration of this ‘bamboozle skill’. There are at least 3 tiers of skill here: 1) you just pick randomly; 2) you pick the card that best suits your deck; 3) you pick the card that best suits your deck while also acting as a counter to the opponent. There’s a lot of knowledge and understanding that goes into making the right choice.
Ultimately, I think the middle ground random card generation (i.e. it goes into your hand, but you don’t have any choice in what card it is) hides the most skill of these three. Being able to work out a good use for a card that has no obvious use arguably shows more skill than following the same old game-plan with a low RNG deck. That comparison can be debated; I’m just pointing out there’s an argument for it.
Monte Carlo’s relation to RNG in Hearthstone is usually one of win rates rather than individual games. Put succinctly, you play the random effects that statistically improve your odds of winning, even if each individual effect looks uncontrolled. The entire reason RNG makes it into strong decks is statistical, and the people who worked out the RNG cards were good (I’m not looking at you netdeckers!) were the skilled players that saw past the variance… OK, and deck-trackers build the statistics for them so they only actually need to know that a larger number is good. But that diminishment of skill is down to the deck-trackers and HS websites, not the game design itself.
Ultimately, a player’s skill in any game is just a measure of how well they can navigate the environment they are given. You can be great at chess but hopeless in HS and vice versa, not so much because one game requires more skill than the other, but because the two games require a different set of skills. To comment on the amount of RNG in HS is to comment on the game environment, not the skill it takes to play it well.
To round things off I’m going to make a comment regarding Burgle Rogue (which has long been my favourite archetype and I am therefore very biased). Given my preference for the bamboozle play in chess, it is perhaps obvious that I would gravitate to a deck whose main win condition is to bamboozle the opponent into submission by doing it so much that statistics shine through within a single game. I guess all I really want is for people to recognise that there’s a lot more skill and planning going on than it looks like when you meet me on ladder and I beat you up with an Animated Avalanche in a deck with no elementals in it.
----------------------------------------------------
Tl;dr: seriously? If you really want 1500 words condensed into a single sentence I guess I’ll repeat this: To comment on the amount of RNG in HS is to comment on the game environment, not the skill it takes to play it well.
