Asymmetry = Value

In Eurogames, often the focus is on creating a symmetrical game environment. The idea is that you want to start all players on exactly equal footing so that the winner of the game is decided "fairly", so to speak.

Often, the driving factor behind most Eurogames is finding a way to break that initial symmetry, or at the very least take advantage of fluctuations in symmetry and maximize your score at every opportunity. Players in Eurogames often poke and prod at the system to find these fluctuation points--maybe it's finding the rythym in San Juan that lets you Build when others aren't ready, forcing them to miss a Build phase or have to build a suboptimal building, for example.

While I think that such games have their place--and yeah, breaking the symmetry in such games can be a bit of fun--I think it lends itself to the notion that Eurogames are a bit more limited in their replayability. There's certainly the myth, real or no, that Eurogamers will "solve" a particular game and quickly move on to the next, maybe logging six plays or so before reaching that point.

It's not hard to see why; the decision space remains the same for all players. It may make a slight difference whether you are player 1 or 4 at the table, but beyond that each play is fairly identical to the last.

Critics of Ameritrash games will often lambast the asymmetry that is usually built in to these types of games. Of course, the reason for having them is pretty straightforward--when a game is tied directly to its theme, it doesn't usually make sense to have all sides or players have identical resources or even goals. In War of the Ring, it wouldn't make sense for the Shadow and Free People's player to have the same goals or even play even remotely identically; after all, it is trying to represent the events and situations in the novels, where this symmetry certainly doesn't hold true.

What really is appealing to AT fans however is the idea that essentially you get multiple games in one package. In Axis and Allies, playing as the United States or the entire Allied force is a MUCH different experience than playing as the Germans or the Axis force. Starting positions are radically different, strategies are therefore likewise much different, the goals of each player diverge and follow different paths. A Game of Thrones sees five houses with different starting positions, strengths, and combat House cards trying to win the game with what they have available. Fury of Dracula has one player as Dracula versus 1-4 players as Hunters who have goals that are completely different to one another--Dracula is to stay alive and create new vampires, while the Hunters merely want to slay Dracula before he does this.

Another way games create asymmetry is via variable player powers, a favorite game element of mine. Not only do you have different starting resources, but during the game you have an ability or set of abilities that are totally different than the player across the table from you. Twilight Imperium has a host of races who must approach the game in different fashions; some are combat monsters, others have vast wealth in trade goods for negotiation, some can hoard huge amounts of action cards, and still others are more politically focused.

How does this create value? In each of these cases, it is like you are getting multiple games in one package. When you pick up Fury of Dracula, you get two major games, one of which has four minor variations. Playing as Dracula is a much different experience--indeed, a much different game for you--than playing the hunters; each hunter is different, but less so (still enough to create a new experience playing Mina instead of Van Helsing, however).

Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit, a game I spend endless amounts of time pimping, is a great example. Let's say if the game was completely symmetrical--we might tire of the game after only ten sessions. But since playing the Federation is so much different than the Republic, you can effectively double that number...maybe I've tired of squashing Gungans, and now I want to unleash a twin Jedi beatdown on the horned Sith Darth Maul.


You can extrapolate this further when you get into games with variable army construction, such as Heroscape. Asymmetry is built in to that game at a fundamental level, as two 500 point armies are not necessarily created equal. It's very easy to spend the same amount of points as another player and still be completely outclassed in terms of efficiency and combos (imagine spending points to draft an Orc champion who gives your orc warriors free activations but then drafting no orcs to back him up...an extreme example, but a good illustration of how points can be "wasted").

If I tire of fighting you with my Super Orcs of Doom, I can move on to try new combinations, drastically extending the life and play value of my game. To me, that's a great deal.



This isn't a purely AT thing, of course. Reiner has been known to dabble in asymmetrical games such as Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, Lord of the Rings, Blue Moon, and others. Amun Re and Ra both see players start out in fairly symmetrical positions that can quickly and very easily shift to tremendously large gaps in symmetry very quickly.


Balance might be nice, and I realize that it can be tough to balance different powers so that each players have exactly identical chances at winning. That's okay; to me, it makes me want to play the 'weaker' force more to see if I can't pull off the win, making it all the sweeter. Of course, this also means we can just swap sides so I can give you a good thumping....