@Clemens
To me a good turn-based game is NOT based on skill or learning the mechanics. "Skill" in that respect would only mean that you know how to beat the numbers. It's not about being fast or having good reflexes like in first person shooters. There is no skill in games like D:OS. To be able to react with what you have to a challenge ahead of you isn't based on skill but on basic intelligence.
As I said in my post before, I think that the game should offer a lot more randomness. A game like D:OS which is based mostly on number games and simple causal combat mechanism (actio->reacio) is somehow "dead" to me. You beat every enemy by the same patterns or different set of patterns based on their resistencies and stuff.
I think a good game with some "challenge" here should mean that you have to die in hard fights. Maybe two times, maybe ten times, maybe you make it in the first attempt. Since many stuff is based on random principle you can never know how it plays out in the end. That's the basic principle of many board games as well, at least the entertaining ones. They combine tactics and strategy with luck. A game which is only based on one of them is either too chaotic or too boring and expectable...
As you mentioned in a previous reply, the argument is largely philosophical, but I could not disagree more with this.
Luck based mechanics that determine whether or not you win or lose fights are the most frustrating and unrewarding things you could put into any type of game.
As you would expect, I firmly disagree. But maybe I wasn't able to express myself good enough here: I don't want a game based on luck and randomness alone, not at all. I want a game with a clever combination of luck and logic. Luck is the spice in the meal imo. Maybe if I could use a picture: luck is chaos and logic is order. Each of them is bad but together they are king.
There is nothing worse than going into a fight 5 times and die each time all while knowing you made all the correct decisions but just got really unlucky. Then, when you finally win the fight, there is no sense of satisfaction since you know that you would have probably lost if your 5% chance to insta-kill spell had not succeeded.
Where is the satisfaction of memorizing patterns and using numbers games to win a fight? There is quite some fascination to beat a human player in a strictly logical game like chess, I wholeheartedly admit it. Being more clever than the other one and having the better strategy (or the ability to think more in advance and knowing the rules better...).
But this fascination is hugely inferior in a SP video game against a pre-defined enemy AI. Pure logic and numbers games just make the whole experience boring here. There are only two possibilites to eventually prevent that: first, making each opponent unique with a unique fighting style, abilites and strategy (which is almost impossible in a game like that, but that's mostly the solution of Dark Souls for example) or second, add randomness to the forumula (which is the solution used in most games of its genre and even pen and paper games like Dungeons & Dragons).
Luck in that respect means that your strategy or tacitcs could fail. Anytime. There is no golden way to the win. There is no pattern to memorize (hello, Dark Souls...) but there is sure tactics and even strategy left. You just have to react what actually happens in batlle. Your mage failed his cast? Bad luck, adapt your tactics. The enemey failed to hit you? Fine, use the advantage.
And as I said, there is already "luck" in the game. You melee fighters can miss their targets. If you don't want any luck or probabilites in the game even your melee fighter had to hit with each turn. On top of that there shouldn't be even a range for weapons since 70-170 damage is also based on luck and probabilites. Just let them hit every time with 100 damage. I don't know what you think but to me that sounds incredibly boring. In a game like Dark Souls this is ok because you still have the action and to press the buttons all at the right time but here, in a turn-based game? It would be an inferior version of chess against a predictable enemey. Doesn't sound like fun to me tbh...
I would much rather have games challenge me to think through my actions before doing them than challenge me to beat my head against a wall multiple times until I am lucky enough for it to give way.
As I said before the outcome of a fight should rely on luck alone. But luck should be part of it for each and everyone, not only melee fighters.
But of course you don't have to agree with me. Maybe (or even likely) to some a turn-based game without any random component sounds like great fun. Praise the variety!
