this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
43 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23272 readers
19 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From a second hand anecdote, I do recall my grandfather saying games with a luck aspect are inferior to those without. Also he's a huge Weiqi guy, and really likes Luzhanqi. Mahjong, dominoes and card games involve chance, whereas Weiqi, Tiaoqi, Xiangqi and Luzhanqi don't.
I assumed it was due to the opportunity for gambling. A game without RNG would attract less (edit:) problem gambling.
It's also infinitely harder to cheat at those type of games (chess/checkers) where 100% of the boardstate/gamestate is known to both players at all times. Card games and tile games + gambling opens up lots of accusations of and opportunities for cheating for financial gain, resulting in disputes and arguments. I can't imagine Mao saw any of those as acceptable necessities of otherwise 'pro-social' games.
I never did personally get the appeal of Weiqi. It was real fucking boring to me. But nonetheless it seemed a lot more honest than even doudizhu/fight the landlord. I guess specifically card games, majiang and dominoes implies this is the case