Asymmetry: The Holy Grail

I've gone at length at some of the ways that games interest me in the past: visual storylines have always been an important consideration for me, as well as good conveyance between theme and mechanisms. Most if not all of the games I have currently fit the above two categories, (although I will make exceptions for true gems like Caylus or T&E that don't quite fit the mold of either fully), but in recent months I've realised that there is another categories that opens my wallet faster than any of the above, and that's asymmetry. 

First of all, what do I mean by asymmetry? The obvious definition is that asymmetric games are ones in which in can play different roles/sides play differently from each other. This simple definition can cause trouble, however, because I feel that it is overly broad. 

For example, let's imagine a dungeon crawling game: does the fact that you can be a healer or a tank or a damage dealer mean that there is asymmetry within the game? Depending on the game, I wouldn't say that is the case, because largely you are interacting in the game in similar ways to the rest of the team, although you are activating powers that have different effects.

For me, asymmetry not only needs to feature different roles, but different ways to play the game, different rules and different mindsets from one role/side to the other. Also, I largely define asymmetric games as ones where you are in competition with others, and not just having different roles within the same team. It is also important to note that there are degrees of asymmetry, and that 'true' asymmetry is difficult, if not impossible, to implement properly (hence the holy grail in the title of this article).

Starting from the lower end of the asymmetry scale, you have games such as Descent or Imperial Assault. "But Tekopo", I hear you cry, "you just said that team games don't fit your definition of asymmetry". That might as well be true, but those games do feature an antagonist, that often plays in very different terms than what are known as the 'player characters'. Those games, however, do feature a low level of asymmetry because, in the end, the antagonist is more or less playing the role of the game engine, albeit with smarter decision making and some choices in terms of progression.

A further step up from that, you have games such as Terra Mystica. Terra Mystica features a medium degree of asymmetry: the races within the game do play wildly different and each have different special rules, but largely they have the same menu of actions available to them: it might cost more to build houses as the swarmlings compared to the engineers, but in the end you are still building a house. The strategies between races can very quite dramatically, however. If this degree of asymmetry was not present in Terra Mystica, it is likely that I would have given up on the game as just another dry euro.

Next in line I have games like Yomi, EXCEED and BattleCON (with the latter featuring higher up on the asymmetry scale). All these games feature sets of different fighters, with each playing very different from the next. So, for example, a rushdown character plays and feels very different from a more defensive character or a grappler. This is especially true in BattleCON, where characters can have extremely intricate gimmicks that allow them to break the rules of the game. 

However, in all of these examples, all the characters still follow the same rules: in EXCEED and Yomi, you are still playing a single card in the combat phase. In BattleCON, you are still combining a base and a style to decide what to do.

Nestled within these layers are also the majority of wargames. Most wargames feature asymmetric side and this is very notable in, for example, Empire of the Sun, where the Japanese and the US play very differently due to the disposition of their forces.

The next stage in asymmetry, of course, the COIN series of wargames (which many of you probably would have guessed I would mention eventually). The difference between COINs and many of the other games I have mentioned thus far is that in COIN games, not only do different sides play/feel completely different from each other, but in many cases do not have the same actions available and sometimes do not even follow the same rules. Another important factor is that the victory conditions for each side are wildly different.

This, to me, approaches "pure" asymmetry. Once you get to this stage (or any asymmetric game in which there are more than two sides), it becomes very important to allow all the players to have tools to affect all other players and prevent them from achieving victory, which is a notable design hurdle.

The latest, probably most interesting step towards the holy grail of complete asymmetry is a new game that I haven't had the chance to try yet: Vast: The Crystal Cavern. In this newly released game which has a dungeon crawling theme, the sides can be the Paladin, the tribes of Goblins that infest the cavern, the Dragon that the Paladin wishes to slay, or even playing as the Cavern itself! Having read the rules, all the sides play wildly differently from each other, which is why this title has piqued my interest.

Although pure asymmetry is, in my opinion, a noble goal, it is also one fraught with danger. Asymmetric games can be difficult to explain and teach, especially if all the players have interlocking sets of objectives/powers that rely on understanding how all of the players at the table interact. This is true of games like Yomi, in which you only really understand how to play once you know your own character well, your opponents character, and how the match-up is played. 

It is especially true, however, of games like the COIN series and Vast. In games that have low levels of asymmetry, it is usually possible to teach all of the players the basics since most sides will have the same base rules, but for COINs/Vast, it is necessary to explain each faction in turn, which significantly adds to the teaching time required for these games. 

Asymmetric games are also difficult to balance and, if not done correctly, can be horribly broken. Although low levels of asymmetry can be added by injecting small special rules to the sides, these are usually limited and don't reach the levels of asymmetry that I enjoy.

Even regarding all of the above, why is asymmetry a good thing? It can add to the longevity of the game, it can provide a completely different playing experience based on which side you are playing, and, at least to me, it adds to the feeling that the side I am currently playing is 'mine', and not just a facsimile of another faction that another player is currently using. Arguments against asymmetry can be made as well, in that there is something to be said about a game in which the only differences between factions are not anything set out at the start of the game, but built gradually while the game is being played. 

I do, however, think that the depths of design for asymmetric games have not been plumbed as deeply or as widely as for symmetric games, and with the coming of games such as Vast, the future for asymmetric games does indeed look bright.