This sounds similar (but not quite) to Ready Set Bet [1], which is probably a lot easier to find than this.
This game, as the title suggests, is pure luck, based on the cards you were dealt.
In RSB, it’s real-time, and as dice are rolled to move horses forward, you can place bets on a number of spots, based on how the dice are being rolled (always by a designated player that is either part of the betting or not — recommended that they don’t bet if you have enough players).
Obviously still a lot of luck, as with most dice rolling games. But a decent amount of strategy in timing your bets, especially since bets freeze once horses get to a certain line in the game.
Came to the comment(s) looking for this game. I've played this! Fun!
It's interesting to explore the spectrum of what people find fun. In large groups, it seems like games that tilt heavily towards luck can be a great deal of fun for everyone, while "board gamers" (like me) enjoy games where you can learn and leverage strategies to gain advantage, and the role of luck is diminished (to varying degrees).
As a board game host, you have to get that spectrum, gauge group size and preference, and pick a game that will work for them. Strategic games, in particular, take learning the rules, learning the strategies, practicing them, learning your opponents... it can take a dozen games before you're competitive. And for a lot of people, almost none of those games will be any fun.
A few games kind of nail this with an unexpectedly even playing field, where strategy helps, but luck offsets it. If luck really offsets it, very strategic players will also find that it's no fun.
Some luck-based games I really like include Lords of Vegas (not to mention... just Vegas), Bunny Kingdom, and Flip 7.
A lot of card-based strategy games like Terraforming Mars and Wingspan certainly have some amount of luck in them, but it can be dwarfed by good synergy / strategy.
I think for big groups it’s not so much luck/randomness that is the key but complexity. Low complexity games are going to play better. They can be pure skill games. Many drinking games are (beer pong etc).
Luck/randomness is directly against determinism. A way of making feel less mechanical and opening up the combinatorial state space? Essentially increasing the fun/interest without introducing high complexity necessarily? As well as narrow the skill range as you say, but not necessarily over longer time horizons.
Like you can do a 2d matrix of luck and complexity.
Being allowed to place bets makes it actually not a pure luck game. That game can be optimally solved given knowledge of the world because there are choices involved.
TFA's base game, however, is pure luck - you place no bets, you discard no cards, you make no decisions. Perhaps you influence things by how you roll, but probably not consciously. If the same die roll sequence and same card shuffle sequence is replayed, the game is the exact same.
I love what they're calling here "zero-player" games. They're automatons that you can build other games on top of (often in combination with other automatons) or, like this, they are games where players can simply identify themselves with one of the game's components. The latter are excellent for groups of drunk people.
Spectator sports are basically zero-player games.
Another classic is "LCR" (Left Center Right), and one that was popular a few years back is "Yahtzee Turbo."
A great uncle of mine had made a similar but simpler game like this we used to play, decades & decades & decades ago. He didn't take credit for it, but he'd gotten it printed on a huge nice sheet of paper, and had horses that advanced down it. You just place bets and turn over cards for each horse, and the highest card horse advances. On rainy days we'd sit in the living room, my sibling & I, basically on top of the giant horse race game, making bets & turning over cards to see who the winner would be.
Our game was shorter, and only had uhh 6 tracks I think. The odds rose quite a lot for the un-favored horses, like, a lot a lot. The horses/tracks all had names, but I can't remember their names.
This game, as the title suggests, is pure luck, based on the cards you were dealt.
In RSB, it’s real-time, and as dice are rolled to move horses forward, you can place bets on a number of spots, based on how the dice are being rolled (always by a designated player that is either part of the betting or not — recommended that they don’t bet if you have enough players).
Obviously still a lot of luck, as with most dice rolling games. But a decent amount of strategy in timing your bets, especially since bets freeze once horses get to a certain line in the game.
[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/351040/ready-set-bet
It's interesting to explore the spectrum of what people find fun. In large groups, it seems like games that tilt heavily towards luck can be a great deal of fun for everyone, while "board gamers" (like me) enjoy games where you can learn and leverage strategies to gain advantage, and the role of luck is diminished (to varying degrees).
As a board game host, you have to get that spectrum, gauge group size and preference, and pick a game that will work for them. Strategic games, in particular, take learning the rules, learning the strategies, practicing them, learning your opponents... it can take a dozen games before you're competitive. And for a lot of people, almost none of those games will be any fun.
A few games kind of nail this with an unexpectedly even playing field, where strategy helps, but luck offsets it. If luck really offsets it, very strategic players will also find that it's no fun.
Some luck-based games I really like include Lords of Vegas (not to mention... just Vegas), Bunny Kingdom, and Flip 7.
A lot of card-based strategy games like Terraforming Mars and Wingspan certainly have some amount of luck in them, but it can be dwarfed by good synergy / strategy.
Luck/randomness is directly against determinism. A way of making feel less mechanical and opening up the combinatorial state space? Essentially increasing the fun/interest without introducing high complexity necessarily? As well as narrow the skill range as you say, but not necessarily over longer time horizons.
Like you can do a 2d matrix of luck and complexity.
Tic tac toe - low randomness, low complexity
Chess - low randomness, high complexity
Poker - med randomness, high complexity
Roulette - high randomness, low complexity
TFA's base game, however, is pure luck - you place no bets, you discard no cards, you make no decisions. Perhaps you influence things by how you roll, but probably not consciously. If the same die roll sequence and same card shuffle sequence is replayed, the game is the exact same.
Spectator sports are basically zero-player games.
Another classic is "LCR" (Left Center Right), and one that was popular a few years back is "Yahtzee Turbo."
Our game was shorter, and only had uhh 6 tracks I think. The odds rose quite a lot for the un-favored horses, like, a lot a lot. The horses/tracks all had names, but I can't remember their names.