One of these things is not the same, but that’s okay

Asymmetry and balance in learning games

The asymmetrical co-operative computer game, ‘It Takes Two’

In Monopoly, and Chess, thousands of other games, every player starts in the same place, with the same options. They move in the same way, are allowed to do the same things, and have the same powers. Differences result only from luck or different decisions.

It’s an easy way to try to achieve game balance. If you gave people different powers, or started them in different places, how could you be sure that one wasn’t better or easier than another? If White had three Knights and a Bishop, and Black one Knight and three Bishops, would that give one an advantage? Simpler to give everybody the same.

Settling for simple game balance: a missed opportunity?

Simpler, maybe, but not always better. If everyone is set up the same, small, unavoidable imbalances are harder to correct by making a change elsewhere. You can give everyone the same pieces in Chess, but only one can go first, and they have an advantage if the set-up is the same. And whoever is lucky enough to roll right to land a good set early on has a big advantage in Monopoly.

But more than that, we might be missing an opportunity. Some games throw that asymmetry out the window, and reap great benefits.

Real life isn’t symmetrical, either

Many wargames try to simulate historical situations. They don’t set up the Axis and the Allies, or Prussia and France, the same, because they weren’t the same: each has advantages and disadvantages. But this frees them to simulate the nuances of the situation.

Netrunner is a card game themed around the Cyberpunk trope of hackers stealing their way into computer systems. One player has an aim of hacking the system, and cards that help with that, and another the aim of defending it, and cards and rules to suit. This makes for some interesting dynamics.

In the game Carly and the Reaperman, one player uses a PC and another uses VR

Asymmetry works for co-operative games, too

There are a raft of new asymmetric videogames as I write this. It Takes Two is a co-operative game with two different characters, with different powers. Each has to play differently, and help each other, to succeed.

The puzzle game Carly and the Reaperman even has different interfaces for the players: one plays from a PC, the other via VR. The experience is totally different for each, and the ways the two interact allow for some unique puzzles.

There’s more than one way to balance a game

You can even have one player vastly overpowered, but take account of it. A (US) Football boardgame I used to play, Paydirt, simulated the real-life strength of various teams. As in life, this leads to some uneven match-ups, but the aim is not to win, it’s to beat the spread. In other words, to win by more points than you were expected to, or to lose by fewer.

In the Avalon Hill boardgame, ‘Paydirt’, teams are modelled on real life strength, so unbalanced games are common: the aim is to beat the ‘spread’, not just the other team

And in many tabletop role-playing games, you can be an overpowered character in terms of stats and skills, at the cost of having difficulties with your background or personality that make for challenging role-playing.

What works best for your learning aims?

So, if you’re designing a learning game, ask yourself: does it need to be equal in terms of set-up and opportunity? Whether competitive or co-operative, would it work better for your aims to give players wildly different options and opportunities?

If your game is designed to provide insights into a real-life situation, maybe asymmetry will help to simulate it better. Remember that it’s not always about a completely fair and balanced experience, and it’s not always about competition. So long as people don’t feel they’re set up to fail, or that the game isn’t fun, you can focus on the learning aims.

Playtesting: the key to balancing any game

Of course, game balance is very important, and in some ways harder this way, but this is where playtesting comes into its own. Set up player one and player two with their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Playtest. If player one keeps winning, add some disadvantages (or some advantages to the other player). If something is overpowered, ‘nerf’ it (videogame speak for blunting that power).

And playtesting can help us see how people enjoy the game. Asymmetry — beyond perhaps choosing between some carefully balanced initial characters — is still the exception, particularly in learning games. Maybe the novelty of it will add to your players’ enjoyment. Playtesting will help you find out.