I played League of Legends, a PC/Mac live service game released by Riot Games that is popular among young adults interested in watching esports. It cleverly manipulates probability and psychological pressure through ranked matchmaking, randomly allocated champion shards, and loot systems. While positioning itself as a skill-based game, it quietly incorporates elements of chance and reward uncertainty that result in compulsive play, putting players at risk of addiction.
LoL’s core gameplay loop is skill-based, but reward and progression systems are tied to probabilistic systems. An example is the Hextech Crafting system, which gives “loot boxes” (capsules, chests) with random rewards like champion shards or skins. These are gained through play but require keys that are relatively rarely provided for free and are purchased instead. This creates a gacha-style mechanic where the players open a box and pray something good is within and repeat the process. This model is ethically questionable for its transparency. The players don’t have access to know the drop rates or odds, and they’re also not given with means to evaluate the productivity of grinding compared to money spending. This is very similar to the criticisms of the read “Designing Chance: Addition by Design”; randomness obscures effort and reward, creating illusions of control as it hides real odds.
Ranked mode matchmaking further introduces unpredictability. Riot’s matchmaking system uses hidden MMR (Matchmaking Rating) rather than basic visible rank. They will call games “unlucky” or “streaks” as if they are in a downward spiral that is beyond their control. This tracks with the slot machine psychology of “It’s just bad luck.” Some players even establish personas based on this randomness; my fellow players would frequently remark, “I’m getting carried.” This volatile path can cause players to play more games in an attempt to “undo” a bad loss, leading to marathon play and fatigue. The manner in which this combines skill-based design and randomness is identical to the poker dynamic of attributing victory to oneself and blaming luck for defeat, driving investment forward.
One great ethical question is whether or not randomness is acceptable. I believe that it is acceptable when it is used to add strategic depth or diversity without influencing player action. Randomness in LoL’s champion selection (i.e., ARAM mode) is a good thing, but the loot system and non-intuitive matchmaking are manipulative. The ethical line is crossed when randomness is used to promote compulsive consumption or extended playing time through abusive systems, especially in a game with a young, impressionable demographic. Compared to other games like Fortnite which openly and directly sells cosmetics, LoL hides desirable skins in probability, taking away agency from players and allowing expenditure. Clear odds and earnable alternatives should instead be implemented by designers.
From an MDA perspective, League of Legends meshes Mechanics (matchmaking and loot boxes), with Dynamics (addiction of risk/reward, sunk cost motivation), and an Aesthetic of mastery, competition, and surprise. This is balanced when aesthetics of uncertainty enter into player autonomy, only to become exploitative. Randomness can only be moral if the player knows and decides to take the risk, and LoL does not offer that.
