AsymmetricalDistribution

If all players are exactly equal, there may be little need for PlayerInteraction, and less possibility for Replayability.

Asymmetrical distribution was put forward by Noah_Falstein? (with help from Teut Weidemann) in Better_By_Design? (August 2002). He put it in terms of a "real time strategy" ComputerGame. If, for instance, there are two types of resources in the game, of which a player needs both, putting most of each resource in one player's territory will limit players' growth while just keeping to themselves. In order to build more, a player will have to go raiding, which drives conflict in the game and keeps it interesting. A foothold in all resources also creates PositiveFeedback for the player who took the initiative and succeeded.

Related concepts:

• PrivilegedMove can be considered an asymmetrical distribution of game powers.
• Subgames can be considered an asymmetrical distribution of game play.
• OpportunityToWin give precisely the opposite advice (keep players equal). Using asymmetrical distribution requires careful attention to game balance.

Widely applicable (and widely implemented), this technique can be used to keep player interactions fresh and interesting.

Examples:

• The_Settlers_of_Catan? starts off with the same number of towns for each player, but players will very rarely have the same resources. The random appearance of resources and asymmetry of types drives the trading aspect of the game.
• In Modern_Art?, players will weigh the artists in their hands (and their ability to sell or acquire those artists) when considering which artists to support.
• The_Great_Dalmuti?'s tag-line is "Life Isn't Fair." It uses a forced card exchange to give four of the players slightly different hands. In this case, the Dalmutis are usually considered to get better hands than the Peons, but not necessarily.

Therefore, in general, distribute game resources evenly, but not symmetrically.

CategoryGoodIdea