@@revimfadli4666yeah there's some game design trends that I think fail to understand this. The sort of game that adds insane RNG that revokes player decisions for the sake of not being boring. But also avoids asymmetry beyond surface-level to keep it beginner-friendly. They end up feeling boring to me, I just do the thing (usually just drawing a card and performing the random associated task), I might as well be doing laundry. Betrayal is a big example of this, or uno no mercy.
I have played enough chess to know that it is absolutely asymmetrical despite the initial board state. If you learn a single opening you will know that black cannot play the openings that white can play, and that black cannot choose any opening move in any game, like white can (I know that not all white's opening moves are good either, I only mean that those good first moves don't change from game to game with white, as they do with black)
This is beyond the scope of the discussion but I LOVE how so many asymmetrical games actually become symmetrical when played multiple times. This is a major thing I’ve noticed in hidden role games especially. Players are incentivized to walk the line between innocent and guilty so they can always be plausibly innocent even when guilty
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!
Loving this channel. I really like what you're doing here, talking about games and discussing broader ideas in the hobby via video essay. It's sorely needed in a sea of lists. There's only so many Top 100 Strategy Games, 50 Social Deduction games leaving my collection, Top 15 Flip and Writes of 2020.... videos I can stand to watch.
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).
Root is wonderful, but I've always preferred the other Leder games, Vast. Crystal Caverns is such an interesting game. I know Root is the vast better-received games, but Vast just felt like a story was unfolding before us rather than playing a game
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
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).
@@Quincy_Morris What? A truly horrible business model is a CCG with booster packs. Netrunner as an LCG was basically just a board game with expansions. Under Null Signal now its EXACTLY that.
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 factions do make it feel wildly different, but my word, if you can get 4 or 5 experienced players together to play, the game becomes and absolute blast
@@wittfloyd533 From what i've heard the core issue with at least base root is that the vanguard wins one turn faster than every other faction (assuming no attempts to slow people). This is amplified by not getting anything back for slowing the vanguard when you do slowing others.
@@XenithShadow you mean the Vagabond? Yeah, it kinda feels bad that the competitive players had to make a house rule (Despot Infamy) to keep him in check
@ ah yeh the vagabond not sure if anyone else can win faster than him with a perfect game. Otter might be able to win faster but you would literally have to give them the win for free i think, with them over charging for everything and everyone buying at that price.
Actually searched a video like this, can't believe it was uploaded 4 days ago, this was a great one! Also good tabletop suggestions. I'd really like to try some of these games out
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.
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.
Some games that could be considered symmetrical (although not really "board" games) are "rock, paper, scissors", and "names, places, animals and things"
You want to see a crazy asymmetrical game take a look at Free Radicals. Not sure how it is balance wise, but that's a whole game about people playing different mini-games.
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.
I mostly like this overview, but it feels a bit mashed together. You've done an excellent job identifying different aspects of asymmetry, and some ideal examples to demonstrate it. However I don't think these tiers fit well onto many other games. The level 5 games you mentioned don't have any of the lower level aspects. Games like Spirit Island have different rules (6) but a "same" objective (3) partially because they are cooperative, but can achieve that by different methods to defeat invaders, similar to "multiple separate ways to earn victory points." You can have separate roles without having separate goals, or vise versa. Either way, I think the beggining of the video was brilliant, covering symmetry and basic asymmetry. I think after that it becomes an Asymma-TREE, where different paths of goals, abilities, rules and information all branch from. Sometimes that asymmetry adds to the core game, like in TI4, and sometimes the core game is the asymmetry, like with Root.
Yeh level 5 is kinda just there to be able to include party games in the list. Since obviouly information aymettry started back in stage 2 or 3 with cards in hand. It 100% is already present in stage 4 where the players have hidden roles or objectives.
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
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 !
Not a big deal but as far as I can tell, nobody has pointed this out, so I guess I will. Chess is not symmetric , even beyond turn order. In a proper game of chess, the king and queen are mirrored across the board, so if you play white, your king is left of your queen, with the king on a white tile and the queen on a black tile. If you play black, though, the king and queen are "swapped" so that your king is to the right of your queen, with the king on the black tile and the queen on the white tile. Every other piece begins in an identical location regardless of whether you play white or black, but the king and queen are different.
I think you misunderstood what he meant - his argument is not about piece placement. Rather about the order of play that affects the players's decisions assymetricly
@@yanivcohen1142 Thanks for trying to clarify! I do understand that, it's just that he does specifically note that while chess is 'temporally' asymmetric due to turn order, it is 'spatially' symmetric (at 9:06, in addition to saying it is 'perfectly symmetrical' in terms of pieces at 6:24, and maybe some other comments). Which is just factually not quite correct, since chess is, it turns out, also subtly spatially asymmetric due to that differing queen/king placement, and this does also affect player decisions. This isn't something commonly known outside of chess players, I guess, so I figured it was worth pointing out as a bit of trivia, even though it doesn't substantially change anything about the core argument.
That's called mirror symmetry. Your queen is in front of their king. Their queen is in front of your king. Exactly the same. Consider a variant of chess where turn order is removed; you both decide a move and then it gets applied. If that would result in an impossible board state such as two pieces in the same location, then the moves are retracted and cannot be reused until a valid turn has been played. The game can now be played as a perfect mirror match without one side playing suboptimally.
Two games I'm working on are approaching asymmetry and balance in the same way. One player sets up the initial game state, and the second player chooses which side to play as. Though the second of the two reaches near perfect symmetry -- Both players create two quarters of the board in secret, then they each choose one created by their opponent and combine it with the one of theirs not chosen. (I encourage anyone interested in making a game like this to do so!)
In the first game, one color will always go first, so that it's obvious what choice is being presented. In the second game, first player is determined by certain aspects of placement, so it'll be obvious during selection which board will make someone go first.
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.
The plague inc can be more or less symmetrical depending on choosing different disease types before the game begins. It also has an innate way to try and help Turn order problems. The first player starts with no points, and each following player starts with one more than the player before. In large enough groups, and enough luck, this means that the last player can actually evolve their disease first, as well as having more information about everyone else's strategies or capabilities.
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.
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!
Hi Alan! Thanks for the comment and kind words, I sincerely appreciate the critique and I'm always actively looking for ways to improve. I've taken your note to heart, and I agree! I'll spend more time on the editing floor for future videos! Much appreciated!
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.
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.
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!
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 great, and its also one of the first that I think of for asymmetry, but its not on the same level. It's more in that level 3 category where the base rules are the same, but you have unique abilities. Yeah, some of the factions break a rule or 2, but everyone is still playing the same game overall.
@@heroicskeleton1566I think that's a fair assessment, and in reflection I do agree. I think Root is really more like "everyone is playing a different game that somehow interacts with each other".
I think cosmic is more like Twilight imperium than root, as it has a robust game that everyone plays the same and then adds abilities on top, while root’s core gameplay varies greatly between factions. Both cosmic and root are in my top 5 favorite games I’ve ever played
You forgot just the peak of asymmetry, Vast, Ledes Games's first (and best) game! This game is true asymmetry, where each player's mechanics, objective, and short-term goals are completely different. Yeah, Root is a good example, very asymmetric, but it is still a game where everyone uses the same deck of cards and needs to battle for dominance with the same battle rules to achieve the same thing: points.
Thanks for the video. I never thought of player order as a type of asymmetry, but there are certainly plenty of games where the action I take might be based on or limiited by my place in player order. And that can get more interesting/challenging in games where the players have some control over their place in player order. Also, I love Root and Dune: Imperium in all its forms. Arcs hasn't fully clicked for me yet, but I am curious to try it more.
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).
I can see why youd say that the previous levels are required for the next but i dont think thats what he was going for. The level just means how asymmetrical it is and what is the cause of this asymmetry. Thats why level 5 is information. It may be simple to grasp but it is more asymmetrical than just hvaing a different unique power. I do agree about switching the possible orders. 4 and 5 in particular. Maybe its because all other information is known, its just your rooe that is changing (a small yet vital piece of information.)
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.
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.
The fighting game example is mostly true, although a lot of them have programming oversights such that there's "port priority", where one player does have a priority advantage in some situations where both are otherwise doing the exact same thing - i.e., both players do the same attack at the same time, but player 1 hits and player 2 doesn't. It's not intentional, and it can be avoided, it's just hard to squash every single bug of that type.
What about (Disney) Villainous? Would that be Level 6 or perhaps Level 7? In case you're unfamiliar: In Villainous each player chooses a villain with a unique game board, objective, and cards. There is no shared game board which is what makes me wonder if that makes it a Level 7... And while some villains have vaguely similar win conditions, none of them are identical, and the way they go about fulfilling them is unique as well. The card types available to each player are for the most part the same but the card values and abilities differ, and even the available combinations of actions each player can choose at the start of their turn on their player board at any given time can differ quite a bit, even if most types of actions are generally available to each player. And when you play the game for the first time it's very hard to tell how far along your opponent is in fulfilling their objective because you need to be very familiar with their objective and the steps it takes to fulfill it, and which cards in their deck they require at any given time. It's almost impossible to play when only one player is experienced and the other(s) aren't because the first time players don't really know how to thwart you effectively because they are still wrapping their heads around their own goal and playstyle.
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!
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.
A fighting game mirror match can have some asymmetry still. There are characters in fighting games that have movesets that don't fully mirror and favor one side over the other and there are stages that are asymmetrical as well. But yes, most should be symmetrical.
Hey man, great video, super interesting and informative. I did notice that you repeat yourself a lot, often successfully making a single point multiple times over. This might just be a me issue, but if you consolidated them a bit, you would decrease the runtime and increase the pacing of your video by a decent margin without sacrificing any content.
Oh.... I thought there were only 4 factions in root. The cats which were showcased. Some lone ranger type of dude who just runs around and collects items. Some bird guy who has to build more complex move orders as time progresses, and if he fails he gets a penalty. And some slow moving but powerful influence spreading guy who can immediately kill everyone in a clearing with influence, or something like that.
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.
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.
Other incredibly asymmetrical games are Twilight Struggle, Fury of Dracula and War of the Ring (basically all games where 2 fundamentally opposite sides clash with each other are highly asymmetrical games and could use their own category). Also, Spirit Island is at level 6 in my opinion. Interestingly, The Voyages of Marco Polo is a great example of a very asymmetrical game that should be above level 3 of (this game is it's own beast in the asymmetry department).
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.
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.
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.
Hey friend! Thank you for the comment! I'm glad you brought up Dune (1979/2019/GF9). I'm a huge fan of the game, and I can see your point! That said, I think some factions (Emperor, Spacing Guild and Harkonnen) play with fairly limited asymmetry when it comes to truly wild rule bending. For example, sure, the Emperor receives funds from the card auctions, and has more powerful troops, but this isn't a fundamental shift of the core rules of each round. The great houses, like Atreides, Moritani, Ecaz, and Richese all have excellent additions of asymmetry, but they still have shared DNA that has ancestry with the 'Core' of the game. The more wild factions, like Tleilaxu, Ixians, and especially the Bene Gesserit do have aspects of rule bending, high level restructuring of rules, but even then I don't know if it's to the extent of the 'playing their own ruleset'. I'd argue the Bene Gesserit are closest to this type of asymmetry, but I'm not 100% confident. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dune has a core ruleset that could hypothetically be played without much asymmetry at all. It'd be bad, it'd be boring, but it's possible. This isn't a slight on Dune at all though, it's truly brilliant. I think a mistake with my video is that I should've emphasized that 'no form of asymmetry or lack thereof is inherently better or worse than any other type, the method of implementation should all be in service of creating a better game, not just for the sake of it existing'. I hope this helps clarify, and I thought about Dune prior to making my video. It has an excellent implementation of asymettry!
It’s an interesting topic to analyze for people who like board games, but my critique would be that some of your points could be made more concisely. If you read back over your script you would probably notice that some of what you’re saying gets repetitive or is restated without much added detail. Keep it up!
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.
I'm wondering where CCGs like Magic the Gathering get categorized. Theoretically, each player has access to all the cards to build their deck, but in real like, some players have many more cards than others to choose from. What kind of asymmetry is that?
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.
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.
A tightly balanced game that inspires players into believing they can control chaos. Yeah, there will be a majority of players calling it luck. However, when a player sees that they missed an opportunity because of a lack of their own commitment. Shall they blame luck for their own choices?
33:15 well, yeah but you literally cant play that game if you follow any of the three rules to balance the game, premade setups, reach and the advanced setup
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
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.
“A balanced game does not mean it’s symmetrical”
Louder for the people in the back
I'm just kind of confused why he seemed to be implying asymmetry is negative so early on....
Those "a balanced game will be symmetrical and boring" folks need to realize this
@@revimfadli4666yeah there's some game design trends that I think fail to understand this. The sort of game that adds insane RNG that revokes player decisions for the sake of not being boring. But also avoids asymmetry beyond surface-level to keep it beginner-friendly. They end up feeling boring to me, I just do the thing (usually just drawing a card and performing the random associated task), I might as well be doing laundry. Betrayal is a big example of this, or uno no mercy.
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 have played enough chess to know that it is absolutely asymmetrical despite the initial board state. If you learn a single opening you will know that black cannot play the openings that white can play, and that black cannot choose any opening move in any game, like white can (I know that not all white's opening moves are good either, I only mean that those good first moves don't change from game to game with white, as they do with black)
This is beyond the scope of the discussion but I LOVE how so many asymmetrical games actually become symmetrical when played multiple times.
This is a major thing I’ve noticed in hidden role games especially. Players are incentivized to walk the line between innocent and guilty so they can always be plausibly innocent even when guilty
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.
Hi friend, thank you for the suggestion, that's a great idea! I've made the change and thank you so much for the kind words and tip!
Clicked for title, watched for content
What was it originally?
@yiannchrst”Why peanut butter is my favorite fruit”
Loving this channel. I really like what you're doing here, talking about games and discussing broader ideas in the hobby via video essay. It's sorely needed in a sea of lists. There's only so many Top 100 Strategy Games, 50 Social Deduction games leaving my collection, Top 15 Flip and Writes of 2020.... videos I can stand to watch.
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).
Root is wonderful, but I've always preferred the other Leder games, Vast. Crystal Caverns is such an interesting game. I know Root is the vast better-received games, but Vast just felt like a story was unfolding before us rather than playing a game
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
This channel is so cool love your videos man keep it up you deserve much more attention
This channel is gold. I got into board games recently and I absolutely love your deep dives into topics. Please keep it up my friend!!!
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?
@@Quincy_Morris What? A truly horrible business model is a CCG with booster packs. Netrunner as an LCG was basically just a board game with expansions. Under Null Signal now its EXACTLY that.
Your channel is the best one worldwide about board games, keep rocking!
Great explanations! Can't wait to see more of your reviews and analysis.
incredibly inspiring video!! REALLY want to hear more of this genre
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 factions do make it feel wildly different, but my word, if you can get 4 or 5 experienced players together to play, the game becomes and absolute blast
@@wittfloyd533 Yeah I’d love to get to that stage someday :)
@@wittfloyd533 From what i've heard the core issue with at least base root is that the vanguard wins one turn faster than every other faction (assuming no attempts to slow people). This is amplified by not getting anything back for slowing the vanguard when you do slowing others.
@@XenithShadow you mean the Vagabond? Yeah, it kinda feels bad that the competitive players had to make a house rule (Despot Infamy) to keep him in check
@ ah yeh the vagabond not sure if anyone else can win faster than him with a perfect game. Otter might be able to win faster but you would literally have to give them the win for free i think, with them over charging for everything and everyone buying at that price.
Excellent deep dive into asymmetry.
Big Pasti, you have propelled yourself to be my favorite board game youtuber. Thank you
Actually searched a video like this, can't believe it was uploaded 4 days ago, this was a great one!
Also good tabletop suggestions. I'd really like to try some of these games out
I mean informational assymetry is in a game so simple it's not even a board game anymore: Hangman.
I gotta comment within 24 hours to boost these amazing videos up.
Incredible as always.
Board game design video essay/analysis? hell yeah glad I got recommended your channel
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.
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.
Best board game channel right here
Man every single one of your videos is an absulte hit! Keep it up
Some games that could be considered symmetrical (although not really "board" games) are "rock, paper, scissors", and "names, places, animals and things"
You want to see a crazy asymmetrical game take a look at Free Radicals.
Not sure how it is balance wise, but that's a whole game about people playing different mini-games.
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.
I mostly like this overview, but it feels a bit mashed together. You've done an excellent job identifying different aspects of asymmetry, and some ideal examples to demonstrate it. However I don't think these tiers fit well onto many other games. The level 5 games you mentioned don't have any of the lower level aspects. Games like Spirit Island have different rules (6) but a "same" objective (3) partially because they are cooperative, but can achieve that by different methods to defeat invaders, similar to "multiple separate ways to earn victory points." You can have separate roles without having separate goals, or vise versa.
Either way, I think the beggining of the video was brilliant, covering symmetry and basic asymmetry. I think after that it becomes an Asymma-TREE, where different paths of goals, abilities, rules and information all branch from. Sometimes that asymmetry adds to the core game, like in TI4, and sometimes the core game is the asymmetry, like with Root.
Yeh level 5 is kinda just there to be able to include party games in the list. Since obviouly information aymettry started back in stage 2 or 3 with cards in hand. It 100% is already present in stage 4 where the players have hidden roles or objectives.
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
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 !
Not a big deal but as far as I can tell, nobody has pointed this out, so I guess I will.
Chess is not symmetric , even beyond turn order. In a proper game of chess, the king and queen are mirrored across the board, so if you play white, your king is left of your queen, with the king on a white tile and the queen on a black tile. If you play black, though, the king and queen are "swapped" so that your king is to the right of your queen, with the king on the black tile and the queen on the white tile. Every other piece begins in an identical location regardless of whether you play white or black, but the king and queen are different.
I think you misunderstood what he meant - his argument is not about piece placement. Rather about the order of play that affects the players's decisions assymetricly
@@yanivcohen1142 Thanks for trying to clarify! I do understand that, it's just that he does specifically note that while chess is 'temporally' asymmetric due to turn order, it is 'spatially' symmetric (at 9:06, in addition to saying it is 'perfectly symmetrical' in terms of pieces at 6:24, and maybe some other comments).
Which is just factually not quite correct, since chess is, it turns out, also subtly spatially asymmetric due to that differing queen/king placement, and this does also affect player decisions.
This isn't something commonly known outside of chess players, I guess, so I figured it was worth pointing out as a bit of trivia, even though it doesn't substantially change anything about the core argument.
That's called mirror symmetry. Your queen is in front of their king. Their queen is in front of your king. Exactly the same.
Consider a variant of chess where turn order is removed; you both decide a move and then it gets applied. If that would result in an impossible board state such as two pieces in the same location, then the moves are retracted and cannot be reused until a valid turn has been played.
The game can now be played as a perfect mirror match without one side playing suboptimally.
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!
Two games I'm working on are approaching asymmetry and balance in the same way. One player sets up the initial game state, and the second player chooses which side to play as. Though the second of the two reaches near perfect symmetry -- Both players create two quarters of the board in secret, then they each choose one created by their opponent and combine it with the one of theirs not chosen.
(I encourage anyone interested in making a game like this to do so!)
In the first game, one color will always go first, so that it's obvious what choice is being presented. In the second game, first player is determined by certain aspects of placement, so it'll be obvious during selection which board will make someone go first.
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.
Excellent quality video once again!
The plague inc can be more or less symmetrical depending on choosing different disease types before the game begins.
It also has an innate way to try and help Turn order problems. The first player starts with no points, and each following player starts with one more than the player before. In large enough groups, and enough luck, this means that the last player can actually evolve their disease first, as well as having more information about everyone else's strategies or capabilities.
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.
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!
Great discussion of the possibilities for this game design feature.
Very nice video and analysis. One suggestion (also personal preference), you do repeat points twice, if not multiple times.
Hi Alan! Thanks for the comment and kind words, I sincerely appreciate the critique and I'm always actively looking for ways to improve. I've taken your note to heart, and I agree! I'll spend more time on the editing floor for future videos! Much appreciated!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Cosmic is great, and its also one of the first that I think of for asymmetry, but its not on the same level. It's more in that level 3 category where the base rules are the same, but you have unique abilities. Yeah, some of the factions break a rule or 2, but everyone is still playing the same game overall.
@@heroicskeleton1566I think that's a fair assessment, and in reflection I do agree. I think Root is really more like "everyone is playing a different game that somehow interacts with each other".
I think cosmic is more like Twilight imperium than root, as it has a robust game that everyone plays the same and then adds abilities on top, while root’s core gameplay varies greatly between factions. Both cosmic and root are in my top 5 favorite games I’ve ever played
You forgot just the peak of asymmetry, Vast, Ledes Games's first (and best) game!
This game is true asymmetry, where each player's mechanics, objective, and short-term goals are completely different. Yeah, Root is a good example, very asymmetric, but it is still a game where everyone uses the same deck of cards and needs to battle for dominance with the same battle rules to achieve the same thing: points.
Thanks for the video. I never thought of player order as a type of asymmetry, but there are certainly plenty of games where the action I take might be based on or limiited by my place in player order. And that can get more interesting/challenging in games where the players have some control over their place in player order.
Also, I love Root and Dune: Imperium in all its forms. Arcs hasn't fully clicked for me yet, but I am curious to try it more.
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).
I can see why youd say that the previous levels are required for the next but i dont think thats what he was going for.
The level just means how asymmetrical it is and what is the cause of this asymmetry. Thats why level 5 is information. It may be simple to grasp but it is more asymmetrical than just hvaing a different unique power. I do agree about switching the possible orders. 4 and 5 in particular.
Maybe its because all other information is known, its just your rooe that is changing (a small yet vital piece of information.)
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.
Love your videos!
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.
The fighting game example is mostly true, although a lot of them have programming oversights such that there's "port priority", where one player does have a priority advantage in some situations where both are otherwise doing the exact same thing - i.e., both players do the same attack at the same time, but player 1 hits and player 2 doesn't. It's not intentional, and it can be avoided, it's just hard to squash every single bug of that type.
Unrest is the simplest example I know of for level 6. Have you seen that one?
What about (Disney) Villainous? Would that be Level 6 or perhaps Level 7? In case you're unfamiliar: In Villainous each player chooses a villain with a unique game board, objective, and cards. There is no shared game board which is what makes me wonder if that makes it a Level 7... And while some villains have vaguely similar win conditions, none of them are identical, and the way they go about fulfilling them is unique as well. The card types available to each player are for the most part the same but the card values and abilities differ, and even the available combinations of actions each player can choose at the start of their turn on their player board at any given time can differ quite a bit, even if most types of actions are generally available to each player.
And when you play the game for the first time it's very hard to tell how far along your opponent is in fulfilling their objective because you need to be very familiar with their objective and the steps it takes to fulfill it, and which cards in their deck they require at any given time. It's almost impossible to play when only one player is experienced and the other(s) aren't because the first time players don't really know how to thwart you effectively because they are still wrapping their heads around their own goal and playstyle.
Interesting video. To me, the COIN series are the true asymmetric games.
Pictionary has informational (lv 5) asymetry, when you think about it.
Great video - I’d be interested in your views on asymmetry in Cosmic Encounter…
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!
Most fighting games I know of, have level 3 asymetry, with different playable characters.
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.
A fighting game mirror match can have some asymmetry still. There are characters in fighting games that have movesets that don't fully mirror and favor one side over the other and there are stages that are asymmetrical as well.
But yes, most should be symmetrical.
Hey man, great video, super interesting and informative. I did notice that you repeat yourself a lot, often successfully making a single point multiple times over. This might just be a me issue, but if you consolidated them a bit, you would decrease the runtime and increase the pacing of your video by a decent margin without sacrificing any content.
A comment for the algorithm. Excellent video, never-the-less.
Oh you dont like assymetrical chess? Look up kung fu chess. Itsca flash version where there is no turn orderbut instead esch peacr has a cool down
Oh.... I thought there were only 4 factions in root.
The cats which were showcased. Some lone ranger type of dude who just runs around and collects items. Some bird guy who has to build more complex move orders as time progresses, and if he fails he gets a penalty. And some slow moving but powerful influence spreading guy who can immediately kill everyone in a clearing with influence, or something like that.
There are 4 in the base-game with no expansions, but there are a bunch of expansions for new factions and rules
Thats the base game of root.
Generally the cats or some other large faction need to be present in the game for it to function correctly.
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.
Great video!
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.
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.
Other incredibly asymmetrical games are Twilight Struggle, Fury of Dracula and War of the Ring (basically all games where 2 fundamentally opposite sides clash with each other are highly asymmetrical games and could use their own category).
Also, Spirit Island is at level 6 in my opinion.
Interestingly, The Voyages of Marco Polo is a great example of a very asymmetrical game that should be above level 3 of (this game is it's own beast in the asymmetry department).
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.
Surprised you didn't bring up hnefatafl in contrast to chess. One of the most OG explicitly asymmetrical games.
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.
Imagine if he started explaining the concept and then just went:
"so to explain asymmetrical gameplay, let's talk about Vietnam first"
Just as note, all games with a narrator (like dnd) could be considered at level 6
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.
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.
bro didn’t even talk about the beat tier 6 game (dune)
Hey friend! Thank you for the comment! I'm glad you brought up Dune (1979/2019/GF9).
I'm a huge fan of the game, and I can see your point! That said, I think some factions (Emperor, Spacing Guild and Harkonnen) play with fairly limited asymmetry when it comes to truly wild rule bending.
For example, sure, the Emperor receives funds from the card auctions, and has more powerful troops, but this isn't a fundamental shift of the core rules of each round.
The great houses, like Atreides, Moritani, Ecaz, and Richese all have excellent additions of asymmetry, but they still have shared DNA that has ancestry with the 'Core' of the game.
The more wild factions, like Tleilaxu, Ixians, and especially the Bene Gesserit do have aspects of rule bending, high level restructuring of rules, but even then I don't know if it's to the extent of the 'playing their own ruleset'. I'd argue the Bene Gesserit are closest to this type of asymmetry, but I'm not 100% confident.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Dune has a core ruleset that could hypothetically be played without much asymmetry at all. It'd be bad, it'd be boring, but it's possible.
This isn't a slight on Dune at all though, it's truly brilliant.
I think a mistake with my video is that I should've emphasized that 'no form of asymmetry or lack thereof is inherently better or worse than any other type, the method of implementation should all be in service of creating a better game, not just for the sake of it existing'.
I hope this helps clarify, and I thought about Dune prior to making my video. It has an excellent implementation of asymettry!
But for a TCG card game, how could I balance it ?
It’s an interesting topic to analyze for people who like board games, but my critique would be that some of your points could be made more concisely. If you read back over your script you would probably notice that some of what you’re saying gets repetitive or is restated without much added detail. Keep it up!
what is the second game that appears? The one with spaceships.
Okay found it, Twilight Imperium
When is your podcast coming out? Count me in.
How was Spirit Island not mentioned?
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.
I think he likes arc...
Is chess not asymmetrical in the setup because of placement of king and queen?
I'm wondering where CCGs like Magic the Gathering get categorized. Theoretically, each player has access to all the cards to build their deck, but in real like, some players have many more cards than others to choose from. What kind of asymmetry is that?
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.
Where do you think Dune (2019) would lie? level 3 or 6?
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.
A tightly balanced game that inspires players into believing they can control chaos. Yeah, there will be a majority of players calling it luck. However, when a player sees that they missed an opportunity because of a lack of their own commitment. Shall they blame luck for their own choices?
33:15 well, yeah but you literally cant play that game if you follow any of the three rules to balance the game, premade setups, reach and the advanced setup
I immediately thought of FOX AND GEESE when I clicked on this video.
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
"build a suburbs the board game" sounds disgusting
ARCS IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER MADE
MY WIFES BOYFRIEND LOVES IT
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 :)