Hi! I think that if you title this video “The 5 levels of board game asymmetry” similar to your complexity video it would skyrocket the viewership. I love your videos!
Root is a masterpiece. Ive been playing online for a few weeks after getting it on sale. Undoubtably my favourite board game ive ever played since every faction plays so incredibly differently with tons of different and deep strategies. My favourites have been the woodland alliance, the underground duchy and the vagabond (specifically tinker).
I bought Root and have been playing with family, and my dad’s opinion has changed from the game because of the asymmetry and each faction’s unique abilities. But I do get where you come from. It does feel like playing four different games.
The Blighted Reach is honestly nothing short of a design masterpiece. It's a miracle it works so well. Even if you don't love Arcs, it's hard not to respect what it achieves
Wow You have talked about most of my favourite games... I think we have the same tastes, from Blood on the Clocktower, Codenames, Dune Imperium, Root, to, I hope when I'll be able to play it... Arcs. Interesting channel, I'll follow
Very nice video! I'd argue there's a level between 1 and 2. The example I'd give is snakes and ladders. You have turn order, yes, but you have additional asymmetry through the luck of the dice. However, unlike Level 2, it does not really compound or branch out.
I think a very interesting aspact of asymmetry is earned advantages and disadvantages. One of the big things that makes Neomath interesting is the fact that initative is controlled by the party with the least amount of party members, followed by speed of the members. Going first is often very advantageous and parties would intentional defeat their own members to get the initative.
I think netrunner is an incredible example of asymmetry, as the two players have comepletely different playstyles. While they share 1 wincon (points), they differ in the other (no hand/drawing from an empty deck respectively).
DUDE! Stoked for a new video!!! And great topic. Really enjoyed this one. I am very interested to get on to ARCS. Heard many good things about hte way it all folds together in such a cohesive manner. And youre right about it paving the way for a new standard of board gaming.... i do wonder who will be up to the challenge in that future. Seems the "K-pop Short" crowd are multiplying.
Great analysis. My biggest takeaway- there truly is no perfect symmetry for games when you consider turn order, luck, ideas of strategy and ultimately, the fact that everyone thinks differently.
I love asymmetry. Have you played Cosmic Encounter? Same idea as root, where the base game is very basic, but then each of the 50(!) aliens in the base game break the rules in some substantial way.
As someone who keeps only a very small number of games (25ish) that I dearly love, asymmetry (and the replayability it gives to game) is probably my favourite feature in games. Spirit Island, Gloomhaven, Gaia Project, Marvel Champions... you can play these games several hundred, if not thousand, of times without a repeat. We don't need new boardgames.
Where does Android Netrunner fall in all this? I rhink the level of asymmetry is much higher than level 4, as the game systems are totally different between sides.
the Linear "levels" do not translate quite that good, since you do not need the Prior Levels to access the higher(generaly). So some thoughts about that in 4 independent Categorys: I ) Changing Bord staits (Level 1/2): Turn Order (and how to change it) and the exclusion/Limitation/Changing of Game options. II ) Information(5/4): This point confused me a bit in your levels, since Level 4 requires Level 5.... additionaly there is the option of allowing/forbidding players to comunicate seperately (secret Diplomatie). Major points in this category that create Asymmetry are things like hidden Cards/Recources. E.g. many Card games (Poker) utilise this form of Asymmetry. III ) Fraction/Player specific rules(3/4/6): Well this was the main focus of your Video so most things were said about it. IV) And there is another aspect that creates Asymmetry which was not mentiond at all: Chance/Luck everything that includes dices or drawing (random) cards. There are games that use only some of the Aspects while other use all. e.g. many Cooperativ games do not realy use I) since the turns are done together while havyly reliing on III) or II).
Only to the turn order section, but Splotter games live and die by turn order. The fact that they have games where you want to be last makes you think in such a different way (FCM). Or Horseless Carriage where if your first for one part of the round you'll be last for the next part.
I don't know that I agree with the party game example like codenames being as high as it is. Simply because this is a team game and both teams are playing under the same ruleset, even if different players have different roles. From a winning and losing standpoint, there is very minimal asymmetry.
Brother this was a great analysis and really interesting video, definitely think you are on track to blowing up. Amazing b roll and editing work as well. Just got my hands on Arc recently and have been loving it - not only the starting resources but the board configuration itself can lend to very interesting asymmetry like natural monopolies on resources if only one planet is active for a certain resource at lower player counts. Has lent to some hilarious organic “oil baron”-esque moments in our play.
What an excellent analysis, super helpful since I started designing a game recently with asymmetry. The game market for indie designers at the end of the video is right up my alley as well.
whats up! cool to see you make more content. Keep up the great work, you have really made my group of friends get into trying board games instead of only playing TTRPGS !
Great video thanks for sharing! I love how it feels playing the blighted reach and how the designer refined their experience creating an asymmetric storytelling experience with root and oath. I've been enjoying Arcs a good bit more than the previous games and look forward to continuing to play it for years to come!
I feel like there should be a level between 1 and 2 for asymmetry created through randomness in gameplay, even when the setup is identical. A game like Clank! or even Monopoly is more asymmetrical than Chess because in Chess, even though I'm going second I could always exactly mirror my opponent's moves and employ the same strategy as him, but in Monopoly if my opponent rolls a 6 and I roll a 5, our strategies have now been forcibly diverged. It's similar for a game like Clank!, both as a function of the random draw of cards you have and the cards available in the dungeon row. I may never have the chance to buy Elven Boots because someone else bought it first and it didn't get dealt out again. Even though the setup is identical, the whims of chance cause the player strategies to diverge naturally as the game progresses, which I see as distinct from your requirements for Level 2.
Asymmetry is one of the hardest things to do well and one of the best things when done correctly. An asymmetric game MUST be balanced. (E.g. equal skill means equal chance to win regardless of faction) if they aren’t balanced then you no longer have a game.
However that perfect balance is probably an impossiblility in most games, and we only have to look at something as supposedly balanced as chess to realise that. How do you balance things when there is a fundamental difference? What criteria can you employ? Its often hard, and play testing will not always establish balance. Worst case scenario, you have something like a Few Acres of Snow, a highly assymetric game which many considered broken because of a certain strategy that one side could employ to more or less guarantee a win. Same designer as Brass Birmingham, and unfortunately this weakness was only revealed after the game went live.
I was just thinking about this because of Arcs vs Root, but specially because of Star Wars Deckbuilding vs Star Realms (and recently Mistborn with variable power and Tyrants of the Underdark with different starting positions). Also, Age of Empires vs Starcraft vs Stormgate. Asymmetry can definitely erode player agency when excessive, and I often found that to be the case with Star Wars (and occasionally in Root), whereas Mistborn and Tyrants gently nudge you in a direction, and then ask you to diversify. They all end up feeling very different as a result. Arcs is in a very interesting place in all this with the illusion of symmetry. Also, shoutouts simultaneous action selection and/or variable turn order. Fighting games are beautiful.
What a beautiful and inspiring video. Not sure how I landed here, but it came at the perfect time, as I'm trying to design a deck building game with a similar level of asymmetry to Root. Thanks a lot!
Nice overview. One class of asymmetry that might also be mentioned is the 1 vs. many style of gameplay like The Others or Descent: Journeys in the Dark (or any variety of alternate rules for other cooperative games where someone takes the role of the usually AI baddie like with expansions to Legendary, Ghost Stories, etc.). It kind of fits in with the 6th level of asymmetry in that both sides (usually) play remarkably different, but I think it feels a bit different from Root and other Leder-style asymmetric games, like some kind of hybrid between the small team vs. big team of L4 social deduction, the 1 person kind of giving the rest something to react to of L5 party games and the very different playstyles of L6.
That reflection in your glasses makes me want to turn the light off behind me ;) Thanks for another great video. Only subbed a few days ago and its already paying off!
Great video! I am curious where you would put a game like Spirit Island, though. You do have faction-specific powers so maybe it is level 3, but you also have a unique role in the game so in that sense it is level 4. Or maybe it is level 6? Depends on what constitutes dramatically different, though I am inclined to think it doesn’t meet that standard fully. The core rules are bland and factions necessary, like Root, but unlike Root you are attempting to do one of the same objectives each game.
While I agree with most of the video, I believe that putting Arcs campaign in level 6 is incorrect. Yes there is more assymetry in the campaign but it is added assymetry (essentially you could play the game without caring about your fate goals winning soley based on winning ambitions) making it more in line with level 3, but in Root the ruleset is different for each faction making generating points different for each faction therefore winning is different for each. Another example for level 6 (which ironically is also a Leder game) is Vast, every player plays a totally different aspect of the game and each has different goal to reach to win the game.
Root feels very similar to a RTS videogame like star craft. The way its built requires many repeated plats for it, and by players of equal interest and knowledge of the factions unique abilities for it to shine. RTS games have the advantage of an online component making it easier to find like minded people to play with. I absolutely love Root and how it is built, but i must admit i did put off buying it for a long time based on the fact that i had few around me willing to put the time and effort into understanding the game. I recently acquired and played my first game of Arcs, and while both games are similar in many ways i feel they scratch different itches. But i do recognized that Arcs feels more refined in its systems.
Fascinating video. But I’d add that chess CAN be symmetric (in a game theoretic sense) if you swap sides or flip a coin to decide who goes first. Turn order is not as big of an issue as you might think, especially in more complicated games where you can have bidding for who gets to play first or second so that the players themselves decide the value of the mover advantage.
@@LightPink So in game theory, a game is said to be symmetric if you have identical strategies and payoffs. In Root each faction has different actions and thus different strategy profiles so it can't be symmetric. I come from an economics background so I am talking about "games" in the specific mathematical sense. Chess as a "game" is not symmetric because black does not have the same set of strategies available as white does at the beginning of their game. Flipping a coin makes it symmetric because before the coin is flipped both players have an equal probability of getting white or black, and so are accounting for the potential of playing either side with essentially identically available strategies in their strategy profiles. I mostly bring this point up to emphasise that just because a game is sequential does not mean it cannot be symmetric. For instance, we could easily apply this coin flip notion to Tic-Tac-Toe and arrive at a similar result. You can read more about this concept here: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/games/games_1.html
@@Masterbutler123 dice could also be rolled to decide who plays what faction in root. I still don't understand how this logic can be used to call chess, but not root, symmetrical.
@Masterbutler123 Right, but you could also flip coins to determine who plays what faction in root, giving each player the same probability of playing any given faction. This is no different from your chess example it only involves more players.
Would Galeforce9's DUNE game be level 3 or 6? I mean players have their own win conditions, but I suppose the game wouldn't be completely UNplayable without any factions at all, maybe just quite lame
I love assymetric games to the point almost 90% of my collection before are assymetric games (not counting party games). But realized having almost only assymetric games (level 6) isnt always ideal, too complex and tiring to teach, without a group playing only that game. But now I found Keep the Heroes Out, its nice there are now simple assymetric games. 😁 PS. Assymetric games are the best.
Your definition of asymmetry is incorrect. It doesn’t have to do with encouraging different decisions, it has to do with players having different starting abilities/disadvantages The more different the abilities and disadvantages the more asymmetric the game.
I do not agree with level 5. It seems off. I think these are different concepts. In level 4 you already have hidden information. On the other hand you missed level -1: Having a different brain/different knowledge is also kind of asymmetry.
This feels like 15 minutes of pedantry. These first 2 levels of 'asymmetry' are just 'turn order and players have decisions', which could have been covered in 5 minutes. Is this a high school paper where you felt like you needed to pad it up to 3000 words? I wouldn't consider either actually 'asymmetric'. If someone told me they were brining an asymmetric game and then pulled up with checkers... I would argue with them. Technically the 1st level of asymmetry is that we are different people with different knowledge if you want to get REALLY pedantic. Why stop at turn order and we can 'pick different things'? Chess for example is symmetric. While there are different openings for white v black, that is because they play against a different board state at the time of the turn. There are also different openings based on what everyone responds with, because the board state changes; NOT because the game is built to be asymmetric. I would also argue that your lvl 5 isn't really asymmetry either as both teams have the same info available to the whole team. Only if it was 'those with knowledge against those without' would it be asymmetric. Both teams have hint givers and hint guessers. *last edit* I do wish that you gave examples of bad asymmetry. You said that it exists, but never gave any examples or explained why they are bad.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Board game design video essay/analysis? hell yeah glad I got recommended your channel
Hi! I think that if you title this video “The 5 levels of board game asymmetry” similar to your complexity video it would skyrocket the viewership. I love your videos!
YUP! He's got to apply that game theory brain to headline writing.
“A balanced game does not mean it’s symmetrical”
Louder for the people in the back
This channel is so cool love your videos man keep it up you deserve much more attention
Your channel is the best one worldwide about board games, keep rocking!
Root is a masterpiece. Ive been playing online for a few weeks after getting it on sale. Undoubtably my favourite board game ive ever played since every faction plays so incredibly differently with tons of different and deep strategies. My favourites have been the woodland alliance, the underground duchy and the vagabond (specifically tinker).
i think you found your niche bro. this video and the complexity video are some of the best board game content I've seen on youtube
I bought Root and have been playing with family, and my dad’s opinion has changed from the game because of the asymmetry and each faction’s unique abilities. But I do get where you come from. It does feel like playing four different games.
I gotta comment within 24 hours to boost these amazing videos up.
Incredible as always.
Great discussion of the possibilities for this game design feature.
The Blighted Reach is honestly nothing short of a design masterpiece. It's a miracle it works so well. Even if you don't love Arcs, it's hard not to respect what it achieves
Wow You have talked about most of my favourite games... I think we have the same tastes, from Blood on the Clocktower, Codenames, Dune Imperium, Root, to, I hope when I'll be able to play it... Arcs. Interesting channel, I'll follow
Very nice video! I'd argue there's a level between 1 and 2. The example I'd give is snakes and ladders. You have turn order, yes, but you have additional asymmetry through the luck of the dice. However, unlike Level 2, it does not really compound or branch out.
I think a very interesting aspact of asymmetry is earned advantages and disadvantages. One of the big things that makes Neomath interesting is the fact that initative is controlled by the party with the least amount of party members, followed by speed of the members. Going first is often very advantageous and parties would intentional defeat their own members to get the initative.
Great explanations! Can't wait to see more of your reviews and analysis.
I think netrunner is an incredible example of asymmetry, as the two players have comepletely different playstyles. While they share 1 wincon (points), they differ in the other (no hand/drawing from an empty deck respectively).
Yes. Good game. Horrible business model
@@Quincy_Morris Netrunner is now run by the community with fixed cards releases i.e. expandable card game. What are you talking about?
DUDE! Stoked for a new video!!! And great topic. Really enjoyed this one. I am very interested to get on to ARCS. Heard many good things about hte way it all folds together in such a cohesive manner. And youre right about it paving the way for a new standard of board gaming.... i do wonder who will be up to the challenge in that future. Seems the "K-pop Short" crowd are multiplying.
Great analysis. My biggest takeaway- there truly is no perfect symmetry for games when you consider turn order, luck, ideas of strategy and ultimately, the fact that everyone thinks differently.
I love asymmetry. Have you played Cosmic Encounter?
Same idea as root, where the base game is very basic, but then each of the 50(!) aliens in the base game break the rules in some substantial way.
Cosmic is the first game I think of when I think of Asymmetry. Dune would be a close second. Both are classic Eberle/Kittredge/Orlotka games.
As someone who keeps only a very small number of games (25ish) that I dearly love, asymmetry (and the replayability it gives to game) is probably my favourite feature in games. Spirit Island, Gloomhaven, Gaia Project, Marvel Champions... you can play these games several hundred, if not thousand, of times without a repeat. We don't need new boardgames.
Man every single one of your videos is an absulte hit! Keep it up
Where does Android Netrunner fall in all this? I rhink the level of asymmetry is much higher than level 4, as the game systems are totally different between sides.
the Linear "levels" do not translate quite that good, since you do not need the Prior Levels to access the higher(generaly). So some thoughts about that in 4 independent Categorys:
I ) Changing Bord staits (Level 1/2): Turn Order (and how to change it) and the exclusion/Limitation/Changing of Game options.
II ) Information(5/4): This point confused me a bit in your levels, since Level 4 requires Level 5.... additionaly there is the option of allowing/forbidding players to comunicate seperately (secret Diplomatie). Major points in this category that create Asymmetry are things like hidden Cards/Recources. E.g. many Card games (Poker) utilise this form of Asymmetry.
III ) Fraction/Player specific rules(3/4/6): Well this was the main focus of your Video so most things were said about it.
IV) And there is another aspect that creates Asymmetry which was not mentiond at all: Chance/Luck everything that includes dices or drawing (random) cards.
There are games that use only some of the Aspects while other use all. e.g. many Cooperativ games do not realy use I) since the turns are done together while havyly reliing on III) or II).
Excellent deep dive into asymmetry.
Only to the turn order section, but Splotter games live and die by turn order. The fact that they have games where you want to be last makes you think in such a different way (FCM). Or Horseless Carriage where if your first for one part of the round you'll be last for the next part.
Have you played Android Netrunner? I was hoping you'd cover that in the video. It's one of my all-time favorite asymmetrical games.
I don't know that I agree with the party game example like codenames being as high as it is.
Simply because this is a team game and both teams are playing under the same ruleset, even if different players have different roles. From a winning and losing standpoint, there is very minimal asymmetry.
Brother this was a great analysis and really interesting video, definitely think you are on track to blowing up. Amazing b roll and editing work as well. Just got my hands on Arc recently and have been loving it - not only the starting resources but the board configuration itself can lend to very interesting asymmetry like natural monopolies on resources if only one planet is active for a certain resource at lower player counts. Has lent to some hilarious organic “oil baron”-esque moments in our play.
Interesting video. To me, the COIN series are the true asymmetric games.
I felt the difference with the editing in how not changing where your face cam appears as much was not nearly as distracting. Keep up the good work!
What an excellent analysis, super helpful since I started designing a game recently with asymmetry. The game market for indie designers at the end of the video is right up my alley as well.
Thanks for the kind words, happy to answer any questions.
whats up! cool to see you make more content. Keep up the great work, you have really made my group of friends get into trying board games instead of only playing TTRPGS !
Great video thanks for sharing! I love how it feels playing the blighted reach and how the designer refined their experience creating an asymmetric storytelling experience with root and oath. I've been enjoying Arcs a good bit more than the previous games and look forward to continuing to play it for years to come!
I feel like there should be a level between 1 and 2 for asymmetry created through randomness in gameplay, even when the setup is identical. A game like Clank! or even Monopoly is more asymmetrical than Chess because in Chess, even though I'm going second I could always exactly mirror my opponent's moves and employ the same strategy as him, but in Monopoly if my opponent rolls a 6 and I roll a 5, our strategies have now been forcibly diverged. It's similar for a game like Clank!, both as a function of the random draw of cards you have and the cards available in the dungeon row. I may never have the chance to buy Elven Boots because someone else bought it first and it didn't get dealt out again. Even though the setup is identical, the whims of chance cause the player strategies to diverge naturally as the game progresses, which I see as distinct from your requirements for Level 2.
Surprised you didn't bring up hnefatafl in contrast to chess. One of the most OG explicitly asymmetrical games.
Great video!
Asymmetry is one of the hardest things to do well and one of the best things when done correctly.
An asymmetric game MUST be balanced. (E.g. equal skill means equal chance to win regardless of faction) if they aren’t balanced then you no longer have a game.
However that perfect balance is probably an impossiblility in most games, and we only have to look at something as supposedly balanced as chess to realise that. How do you balance things when there is a fundamental difference? What criteria can you employ? Its often hard, and play testing will not always establish balance.
Worst case scenario, you have something like a Few Acres of Snow, a highly assymetric game which many considered broken because of a certain strategy that one side could employ to more or less guarantee a win. Same designer as Brass Birmingham, and unfortunately this weakness was only revealed after the game went live.
I was just thinking about this because of Arcs vs Root, but specially because of Star Wars Deckbuilding vs Star Realms (and recently Mistborn with variable power and Tyrants of the Underdark with different starting positions). Also, Age of Empires vs Starcraft vs Stormgate.
Asymmetry can definitely erode player agency when excessive, and I often found that to be the case with Star Wars (and occasionally in Root), whereas Mistborn and Tyrants gently nudge you in a direction, and then ask you to diversify.
They all end up feeling very different as a result. Arcs is in a very interesting place in all this with the illusion of symmetry. Also, shoutouts simultaneous action selection and/or variable turn order. Fighting games are beautiful.
A comment for the algorithm. Excellent video, never-the-less.
What a beautiful and inspiring video. Not sure how I landed here, but it came at the perfect time, as I'm trying to design a deck building game with a similar level of asymmetry to Root. Thanks a lot!
Nice overview. One class of asymmetry that might also be mentioned is the 1 vs. many style of gameplay like The Others or Descent: Journeys in the Dark (or any variety of alternate rules for other cooperative games where someone takes the role of the usually AI baddie like with expansions to Legendary, Ghost Stories, etc.). It kind of fits in with the 6th level of asymmetry in that both sides (usually) play remarkably different, but I think it feels a bit different from Root and other Leder-style asymmetric games, like some kind of hybrid between the small team vs. big team of L4 social deduction, the 1 person kind of giving the rest something to react to of L5 party games and the very different playstyles of L6.
That reflection in your glasses makes me want to turn the light off behind me ;)
Thanks for another great video. Only subbed a few days ago and its already paying off!
What about go for level 1? The 6.5 komi is there to make the game as symmetrical as possible.
Symmetrical games are less interesting because almost no conflict has ever been symmetrical. So symmetrical simulations are less useful
That makes Go balanced, not symmetrical. In fact that makes Go more asymmetrical.
Great video! I am curious where you would put a game like Spirit Island, though. You do have faction-specific powers so maybe it is level 3, but you also have a unique role in the game so in that sense it is level 4. Or maybe it is level 6? Depends on what constitutes dramatically different, though I am inclined to think it doesn’t meet that standard fully. The core rules are bland and factions necessary, like Root, but unlike Root you are attempting to do one of the same objectives each game.
While I agree with most of the video, I believe that putting Arcs campaign in level 6 is incorrect. Yes there is more assymetry in the campaign but it is added assymetry (essentially you could play the game without caring about your fate goals winning soley based on winning ambitions) making it more in line with level 3, but in Root the ruleset is different for each faction making generating points different for each faction therefore winning is different for each.
Another example for level 6 (which ironically is also a Leder game) is Vast, every player plays a totally different aspect of the game and each has different goal to reach to win the game.
But for a TCG card game, how could I balance it ?
Imagine if he started explaining the concept and then just went:
"so to explain asymmetrical gameplay, let's talk about Vietnam first"
Root feels very similar to a RTS videogame like star craft. The way its built requires many repeated plats for it, and by players of equal interest and knowledge of the factions unique abilities for it to shine. RTS games have the advantage of an online component making it easier to find like minded people to play with. I absolutely love Root and how it is built, but i must admit i did put off buying it for a long time based on the fact that i had few around me willing to put the time and effort into understanding the game.
I recently acquired and played my first game of Arcs, and while both games are similar in many ways i feel they scratch different itches. But i do recognized that Arcs feels more refined in its systems.
what do you think of kutna hora at different player counts
Fascinating video. But I’d add that chess CAN be symmetric (in a game theoretic sense) if you swap sides or flip a coin to decide who goes first. Turn order is not as big of an issue as you might think, especially in more complicated games where you can have bidding for who gets to play first or second so that the players themselves decide the value of the mover advantage.
Same can be said of root's factions though
@@LightPink So in game theory, a game is said to be symmetric if you have identical strategies and payoffs. In Root each faction has different actions and thus different strategy profiles so it can't be symmetric.
I come from an economics background so I am talking about "games" in the specific mathematical sense. Chess as a "game" is not symmetric because black does not have the same set of strategies available as white does at the beginning of their game.
Flipping a coin makes it symmetric because before the coin is flipped both players have an equal probability of getting white or black, and so are accounting for the potential of playing either side with essentially identically available strategies in their strategy profiles.
I mostly bring this point up to emphasise that just because a game is sequential does not mean it cannot be symmetric. For instance, we could easily apply this coin flip notion to Tic-Tac-Toe and arrive at a similar result.
You can read more about this concept here:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/games/games_1.html
@@Masterbutler123 dice could also be rolled to decide who plays what faction in root. I still don't understand how this logic can be used to call chess, but not root, symmetrical.
@Masterbutler123 Right, but you could also flip coins to determine who plays what faction in root, giving each player the same probability of playing any given faction. This is no different from your chess example it only involves more players.
Would Galeforce9's DUNE game be level 3 or 6? I mean players have their own win conditions, but I suppose the game wouldn't be completely UNplayable without any factions at all, maybe just quite lame
Stonks
ARCS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER MADE
MY WIFES BOYFRIEND LOVES IT
I love assymetric games to the point almost 90% of my collection before are assymetric games (not counting party games).
But realized having almost only assymetric games (level 6) isnt always ideal, too complex and tiring to teach, without a group playing only that game.
But now I found Keep the Heroes Out, its nice there are now simple assymetric games. 😁
PS. Assymetric games are the best.
Your definition of asymmetry is incorrect. It doesn’t have to do with encouraging different decisions, it has to do with players having different starting abilities/disadvantages
The more different the abilities and disadvantages the more asymmetric the game.
8:23 I caught the whiffed castle :)
Is this video sponsored by Arcs?
I do not agree with level 5. It seems off. I think these are different concepts. In level 4 you already have hidden information.
On the other hand you missed level -1: Having a different brain/different knowledge is also kind of asymmetry.
This feels like 15 minutes of pedantry.
These first 2 levels of 'asymmetry' are just 'turn order and players have decisions', which could have been covered in 5 minutes. Is this a high school paper where you felt like you needed to pad it up to 3000 words? I wouldn't consider either actually 'asymmetric'. If someone told me they were brining an asymmetric game and then pulled up with checkers... I would argue with them.
Technically the 1st level of asymmetry is that we are different people with different knowledge if you want to get REALLY pedantic. Why stop at turn order and we can 'pick different things'? Chess for example is symmetric. While there are different openings for white v black, that is because they play against a different board state at the time of the turn. There are also different openings based on what everyone responds with, because the board state changes; NOT because the game is built to be asymmetric.
I would also argue that your lvl 5 isn't really asymmetry either as both teams have the same info available to the whole team. Only if it was 'those with knowledge against those without' would it be asymmetric. Both teams have hint givers and hint guessers.
*last edit*
I do wish that you gave examples of bad asymmetry. You said that it exists, but never gave any examples or explained why they are bad.
chess is asymmetric for the turn order, it's very clear for every person that play the game...
two minutes, one view. absolutely fell off
94 views, 49 minutes, still fell off