It's a bit sad that ameritrash sounds demeaning. I'm a fan of bringing some randomness into games (big fan of games including dice or card draws). My super-into-boardgames-friends seem to prefer "eurogames", but for me that's often too convoluted. I want to have fun and not plan some grand scheme to trump everyone else (I have enough planning and carefulness in my job already).

There are varying shades of luck and even methods to apply randomness. One way of classification:

  * you can do what you want, but success chance is random
  * action choice is random, success is deterministic

I prefer the second approach. Your options are limited, but whatever you do, works. I think eurogames use the second way more often. Yes, the term "ameritrash" is intentionally derogatory (I didn't come up with it). Can you propose a better term ?

A little bit of luck is really helpful in allowing for diversity in game flow. Something like a mechanic where resources open up on one of 3 random turns means it's harder to reproduce an optimal strategy etc.

Obviously luck is not necessary for a good game, but I do think it makes certain elements of game design easier.

It's a ridiculous term that is just mean, no reason to use it. I'm sad too.

This is often my feeling, if the game is too involved, too technical and requires extensive thinking and manual reading then it feels like work. Similarly, baking also feels like working in the lab (I'm a scientist).

Luck isn't just a matter of taste. A sufficient luck element makes it practical for players of different skill to play together (particularly for 3+ player games, where being uncompetitive isn't so much educational as boring and game-disruptive). Too much luck is unsatisfying for high-skill players, who want close games to consistently go to the more skilled player.