In Different Types of Games

As we'll see in greater depth, different games have different ways of dealing with skill deficits. However, I want to quickly address how some types of systems naturally -- that is to say, without any anti-skill-deficit-problem actions taken on the part of the designer -- exacerbate or diminish the skill deficit problems. First, some that exacerbate the problem:

Racing games. Racing games, by their nature, tend to exacerbate the skill deficit problem. This is due to the naturally low amount of interaction, combined with large in-game space (usually a "track"). This means that players could be on completely different points of a large track, not even seeing each other for much of a match.

Some fighting games. Fighting games with a lot of hit-stun or long memorizable combo attacks tend to be extremely unforgiving for a player of lesser skill. Sometimes, a game like this can completely take agency away from the other player, to the point where it would make no difference if their controller wasn't even plugged in.

And now a couple of examples of systems that naturally diminish the skill-deficit problem.

Most European board games. Many Eurogames tend to not have direct-conflict or player-elimination. A number of popular ones have even been derisively referred to as "multiplayer solitaire," because of their "you do your thing, I'll do mine, and at the end we'll compare scores" play patterns. Further, scores are often not fully calculated until the end. This means that even if a player ends up destroying another player score-wise, both players can have a good time exploring the system. In fact, I've heard players go "Aww!" at the end of a Dominion game despite having won, because they had some crazy combo they were excited about executing.

Games with naturally high levels of randomness. Card games like Poker have a considerable amount of randomness to them, which tends to bring all players' win percentages closer to 50. This means that even a terrible player has a chance to win every now and again -- if even by absolute fluke. Technically, this partially alleviates the problem.

The Modern Response

The two most common modern responses to the problem of skill deficits are:

1. Randomness. Either in the form of natural randomness as in the case of card games like Poker or Dominion, or in the form of injected randomness as in the case of Mario Kart. 

2. Rubberbanding. A system of rewarding poor play and punishing good play, creating an effect of bringing all players to the center. 

First, randomness. Above, I used the phrase "naturally high levels of randomness" to distinguish something like Poker, which has randomness fundamentally baked into the gameplay, and something like Mario Kart, which has "injected" randomness to an existing system -- racing -- that could otherwise exist as a perfectly healthy game without it -- save for the problem, of course, of skill deficits.

Indeed, an increased level of randomness is the primary go-to measure for modern game designers in addressing this problem. Just as a naturally random game mitigates the effect that skill deficits have in destroying a contest, you can get a similar effect by adding randomness into an existing design. Team Fortress 2, while having the normal "bullet-spread" randomness found in nearly all entries in the genre, added a new random critical-hit feature. According to Robin Walker, this wasn't added to level the playing field, but it's undeniable that it has that effect, to some degree -- whether they intended it to or not.