"At its heart, backgammon’s cruelty resides in the dramatic volatility of the dice. Even a player who builds flawless structures on the board can lose to a novice."
This is why I don't like games of chance like backgammon, poker, etc...
It doesn't matter how good you are, how carefully you play, how much you study, if you're not "lucky" you can lose through no fault of your own. Conversely, someone who's merely "lucky" can win against someone with more skill. That's a huge turn-off for me.
On the other side of the randomness spectrum there's chess, where (unless someone cheats) you're on an equal footing, and ideally only your skill determines your success.
I think both systems have their place. Games like chess tend to be brain burners, and the skill divide precludes an entertaining game afters a certain ratings difference.
Games with some randomness level the playing field somewhat. Better players will still win more than worse players, but at least the worse players have a chance. This is why the best poker, and backgammon players tend to dominate.
I would say that social games benefit from some randomness, with chance giving everyone a chance.
That said the level of chance in bluffing games like poker is too high for me, and not hidden well enough. I prefer my chance to be more well disguised, like in board games with card driven systems, or even in a card game like Magic: The Gathering. Backgammon is marginal.
This is why I don't like games of chance like backgammon, poker, etc...
It doesn't matter how good you are, how carefully you play, how much you study, if you're not "lucky" you can lose through no fault of your own. Conversely, someone who's merely "lucky" can win against someone with more skill. That's a huge turn-off for me.
On the other side of the randomness spectrum there's chess, where (unless someone cheats) you're on an equal footing, and ideally only your skill determines your success.