Asymmetry in Games

Notahandle wrote:

Octavian wrote:
"Agricola has occupation and improvement cards. Engine games like PR and RftG encourage players to develop their own independent strengths and weaknesses. Same for Princes of Florence and Through the Ages. Hell...even the initial settlement placement in Settlers of Catan starts players off with asymmetrical strengths and weaknesses which set them off towards very different paths for winning the game"
Firstly, a caveat, it's been a long time since I've played PR, and for TtA I've only read the rules; but I remember both as having the same set ups for all players, correct me if I'm wrong.

How are these games asymmetrical? Everyone has the same set up. The argument that you have different occupation and improvement cards, or different starting worlds, is nonsensical. By that logic Bridge is asymmetrical. I believe that symmetry / asymmetry is exclusively defined by the set up rules. For example, Fortress America is asymmetrical but Shogun is symmetrical. You could say that Shogun has very different starting positions due to the luck of the card draw, but that's irrelevant because the card drawing process is the same for everyone.

Yeah - what he said >:-p

Notahandle wrote:

How are these games asymmetrical? Everyone has the same set up. The argument that you have different occupation and improvement cards, or different starting worlds, is nonsensical. By that logic Bridge is asymmetrical. I believe that symmetry / asymmetry is exclusively defined by the set up rules. For example, Fortress America is asymmetrical but Shogun is symmetrical. You could say that Shogun has very different starting positions due to the luck of the card draw, but that's irrelevant because the card drawing process is the same for everyone.

Can we at least agree that there are degrees of asymmetry? Carcassonne is almost completely symmetrical through out. Same with Tigris and Euphrates. While other games, like Puerto Rico, foster asymmetry to develop over the course of the game - there will be actions that will always be better for me than they are for you. Still others, like Blue Moon, have inherently asymmetrical set ups but both players are trying to accomplish the same goal. Or Mr. Jack, where the game and set up is essentially symmetrical but the goals are different.

All I'm saying is that it's not a simple dichotomous variable - either it's there or it's not. Individuals can have different thresholds for how much asymmetry a game must feature, or in what areas, to be interesting...but I don't see how it can be claimed that such games have no asymmetry at all.

Southernman wrote:

Yeah - what he said >:-p

Nice smiley!

It's always exciting to see how a combo of abilities plays out...or even right before the game begins, you visualize how everything will interact, sometimes you find that "holy shit!" moment. After the game, maybe even in the shower the next day, you think about which character or army you want to play next time, and grin evilly to yourself at the possibilities.

Octavian wrote:

Can we at least agree that there are degrees of asymmetry? Carcassonne is almost completely symmetrical through out. Same with Tigris and Euphrates. While other games, like Puerto Rico, foster asymmetry to develop over the course of the game - there will be actions that will always be better for me than they are for you. Still others, like Blue Moon, have inherently asymmetrical set ups but both players are trying to accomplish the same goal. Or Mr. Jack, where the game and set up is essentially symmetrical but the goals are different.

All I'm saying is that it's not a simple dichotomous variable - either it's there or it's not. Individuals can have different thresholds for how much asymmetry a game must feature, or in what areas, to be interesting...but I don't see how it can be claimed that such games have no asymmetry at all.

Your Puerto Rico example is a HUGE stretch to me. Fostering asymmetry doesn't really cut it, and frankly (I pulled out my computer version of it and played it a number of times) I don't see the fostering anything part of that game - or much of a game at all but that is for another topic.

In Space Hulk, I'm either the Genestealers or the Marines.. THAT is asymmetry. In Last Night on Earth, I play either as part of the zombies, yummy brains, or as the hapless college kids, that is asymmetry. In Talisman, I get a character right off the bat with distinct strengths and weaknesses, that last as long as the character lasts. They don't go away, I didn't have to do anything to get or maintain those strengths and weaknesses. In other asymmetrical games, the initial force locations will immediately provide similar and lasting plusses and minuses.

I'll agree with you that there can be degrees of asymmetry in games, but some of the games that are the most fun are those where the asymmetry comes immediately and lasts permanently.

Mr MOTO wrote:

metalface13 wrote:

Oh man, maybe I just have Dragon Dice on the brain, but what about a collectible coin flipping game!?!

I'm going to insist that you change your avatar soon to some DD. hehe

Pogs and Disk Wars come to mind.

I have some Disk Wars stuff floating around. I loved the mechanic in it.

Octavian wrote:
" Can we at least agree that there are degrees of asymmetry?"
Hmm, I'm not even sure we can agree on that. I do think that a game is either symmetrical or asymmetrical; I don't think there are degrees, simply that it's one or the other. Clearly we have very different definitions. And I'm surprised that it's to such a huge degree!

" Carcassonne is almost completely symmetrical through out. Same with Tigris and Euphrates. While other games, like Puerto Rico, foster asymmetry to develop over the course of the game - there will be actions that will always be better for me than they are for you. Still others, like Blue Moon, have inherently asymmetrical set ups but both players are trying to accomplish the same goal. Or Mr. Jack, where the game and set up is essentially symmetrical but the goals are different."
With the exception of Blue Moon, because I don't know it, I'd say that they're all (Carc, T&E, PR, Mr.J) symmetrical. I can't see how your "there will be actions that will always be better for me than they are for you" reasoning is a basis for asymmetry, since it applies to all games; how would you usefully define this? Your Mr Jack example has me thinking though. If I normally make the definition on the basis of the set up, I like the idea that a game can be asymmetrical because of the goal alone. Because the symmetry - in a different sense of course - appeals!
In which case I'd define asymmetry as a product of whether the set up rules and/or winning condition rules specifically state a difference between the players.

" All I'm saying is that it's not a simple dichotomous variable - either it's there or it's not. Individuals can have different thresholds for how much asymmetry a game must feature, or in what areas, to be interesting...but I don't see how it can be claimed that such games have no asymmetry at all."
Given how I disagree with this, this might be where I'm taking a too rigid black and white view, i.e. my threshold is a lot less variable. You've got me thinking if there're games where the rules define a mid-game situation that is different between players. And there must be, such as if Player A achieves x then draw from Card Deck A, but if Player B achieves x then draw from Card Deck B. I guess I'm refining my definition to say that asymmetry is a function of the rules.

So getting back to your original example of Agricola's occupation and improvement cards, I'd still say it's symmetrical. Those cards dramatically affect each players style of play and make it extremely variable. But I don't think of that in terms of symmetry / asymmetry because every player had the same chance of getting any particular card dealt to them.

"Can we at least agree that there are degrees of asymmetry?"

I agree that there are degrees of asymmetry, but when people say a game has asymmetry, I'm pretty sure they mean that the asymmetries in the game are significant. I'm sure someone could say that Chess is asymmetric because white goes first and has its queen start to the left of the king, but I think that degree of asymmetry is insignificant compared to other games.

Fostering asymmetry during the game just doesn't count, though. That kind of thing happens in pretty much every game.

Notahandle wrote:

So getting back to your original example of Agricola's occupation and improvement cards, I'd still say it's symmetrical. Those cards dramatically affect each players style of play and make it extremely variable. But I don't think of that in terms of symmetry / asymmetry because every player had the same chance of getting any particular card dealt to them.

By that definition Cosmic Encounter is a symmetrical game because each player has the same chance of getting any particular alien. Is that how you see CE?

Aarontu wrote:

Fostering asymmetry during the game just doesn't count, though. That kind of thing happens in pretty much every game.

That's just not true. I can think of scores of game that do not encourage players to go down different paths to reach the goal, or do so in only a very minimal and transient way such that it wouldn't be considered a central part of the game.

Carcassonne, T&E, Nexus Ops, almost every abstract, Power Grid, Age of Steam, Le Havre, Modern Art, Tikal....just to name a few.

The next tier that have a small amount of asymmetry that can develop over the course of the game, but with a very narrow number of paths, include: Taj Mahal, Ra, Stone Age, Amun Re, etc.

Further down the continuum you've got games that start in similar positions and have the same goal for each player but the players develop substantially different ways to get there. Engine games with multiple paths are the most emblematic here - Puerto Rico, San Juan, and Race for the Galaxy all have the shipping vs building asymmetry. I will play a military strategy in RftG very differently from a consuming strategy, and I will play it differently against a consuming strategy than I would against another building strategy.

So I disagree that you can paint with such a broad brush that fostering asymmetry happens in every game. Again, it is a matter of degree, and the degree matters.

-MMM

Before we discuss asymmetry in games, we should define what we mean by it.

Otherwise this discussion might end up as one about interaction.

"RftG has no interaction, because I can't attack other players."
"RftG has interaction, because your action choice affects me."

"PR (Puerto Rico) has no asymmetry, because the set-up and sequence of play is the same for everyone."
"PR has asymmetry, because you start with a corn and I with an indigo plantation."

Octavian wrote:
" By that definition Cosmic Encounter is a symmetrical game because each player has the same chance of getting any particular alien. Is that how you see CE?"
I would have to say yes. Perhaps this means my definition needs further work to allow for the possibility of aspects of a game that modifies rules on the fly. But then it gets messy.

" That's just not true. I can think of scores of game that do not encourage players to go down different paths to reach the goal, or do so in only a very minimal and transient way such that it wouldn't be considered a central part of the game. ... So I disagree that you can paint with such a broad brush that fostering asymmetry happens in every game. Again, it is a matter of degree, and the degree matters."
But then how do you define the degree? What you suggest is all relational, T&E has less asymmetry than Ra which has less than PR. Is there a way of doing it in the absolute? To look at Game Z in isolation, and be able to say something like 'due to factors a, b, and c it is asymmetrical'? It seems that this is another way that we look at symmetry / asymmetry differently, for you it's a relational quality, for me it's an absolute.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.