Asymmetry: A Ward Against Mayflys?

As any regular listener to The Die is Podcast can probably tell you, I like learning and trying new games. I don't just mean games that have come out recently, but also any game that I've never tried before, regardless of how old it may actually be. I enjoy learning how the metaphorical gears of the machine hook together, how a few simple rules can create a massive emergence of strategic and tactical options, and I really love exploring the mechanics of the game with my friends to see what of those options we can find and screw with.

For me, a regular influx of new games provides me with never-ending variety when it comes to seeking those things out. The variety that comes from playing new games means that the experiences I have are always (or most times) different, so I always (or most times) get fun out of the sense of exploration.

Basically, new stuff is fun in part because I've never done it before.

That doesn't mean I don't love old games as well. Part of the reason I have a collection of board games is because many (if not most) are games that I enjoyed not only for the "newness," but also because there was enough depth that I thought the game would continue to be fun, or that there would be people to play with who would really enjoy some aspect of the game. I love Tichu, Intrigue, and For Sale as much as Paperback and Concordia, even though there is a more than twenty years difference between when some of those were published, and a several year difference between the times I first played them.

Getting really into new games as they are released can earn you a label, like "mayfly." I've heard people speak half-jokingly about the "Cult of the New," people who only seem to enjoy playing things that they've never played before. I don't exactly think that such a label is fair in most cases; as I said, I (and many others) enjoy new and old stuff equally. But there is something to be said about the rush that comes from trying out some new cool thing, and how many people seem to flit away from old favorites (perhaps your favorite game?) just to hop on the bandwagon.

Generally, I try not to get too hooked on that feeling. It's no problem at all trying new things all the time if you have a regular group with a never-ending supply of games, or if you go to conventions where there is an actually never-ending flow of newly published gems, but it becomes fairly problematic if you only really get to try new things by buying them... You could end up with the tragedy of dozens or more unplayed and maybe even still-in-shrink games. And that is, by any standard, a waste. Buying a game on a whim, because it seems like it might give you that "new stuff" rush, is a great way to end up with a disappointing purchase.

There are many games that you can play once or twice, and get a really good sense of, maybe even coming to the plateau of the learning curve just in a couple of tries... basically, once everyone has a solid grasp of the rules, everyone is essentially on the ground for every future play. I've heard these games referred to as "disposable" games by people in some corners, which is another unfair categorization, but they do tend to be games that encourage rather than discourage mayfly-like behavior. These games do serve a purpose, of course: they tend to be easy to learn or teach and great for non-gamers, since even an expert isn't going to necessarily do better than a brand new player.

However, there are also games that have depth that is far beyond what could be plumbed in one, ten, or even a thousand repeated plays. Obviously, games like Chess and Go fall into this category. But the main issue with a game like those is that the sense of exploration and newness tends to be very, very subtle and drawn out over a long period, and the excitement from them also tends to be subtle. This is unlikely to help a mayfly focus down on a single game for long. In Go, the rules can almost be boiled down to two or three sentences, with only one kind of piece or move, but the tactics and strategy are almost boundless. Thousands of years of humanity playing Go, and we still feel like we have only scratched the surface. It's like digging through bedrock with a broken spoon; you are able to find cool new possibilities within the play space, but it can be arduous. Which means that it is only fun for a small subset of people as a game of "newness" and "exploration." To be clear, this doesn't make Chess or Go bad (or really, much like the other games I discuss in this article), but to me, it explains a great deal of why they aren't as popular as other board games.

Many board games, especially on BoardGameGeek, fall somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum. The most popular games on the site, like Twilight Struggle, Through the Ages, and Agricola, have amazing depth, and require lots of time to learn, gain skill at, and master (if that is even possible). Recently, though, I've begun to find that there is a particular sub-set of these games that provides depth much in the same way that deep games do, with a much quicker turn-around on the newness/fun rush that people get from so-called "disposable" games can provide. Games where the player sides are asymmetrical; each player has a different set up, a different stock of pieces or cards, and maybe even a different goal.

Asymmetry in games is not a new thing, but I find that when it is used well in games, it can provide a way for players to explore vast depths of strategy in a guided way that can feel absent in symmetrical games. Assymetrical games that have few rules and are easy to learn can't be easily written off because the progress you make in exploring the depth of the game is far more obvious than in something like Go. This doesn't make them better games than Go, but it does make them better at providing that rush that a mayfly gamer wants, the thing that otherwise would have them chasing after whatever new game they see.

Let's take a game I've talked about before as an example, so I can use specifics. Yomi is a quick card game with fairly basic rules that simulates a Street Fighter-esque video game, where two players face off with distinct characters, and fight using attacks, throws, and defensive moves to reduce their opponent's hit points to zero. The basics of the game are incredibly simple: dodges and blocks beat attacks, attacks beat throws, and throws beat dodges and blocks. There are straight-forward rules for dealing damage, character speed, and a few other things, but it can be learned in about five minutes.

The depth of the game comes from the fact that every single character is completely different. Fire archer Jaina has the same basic kinds of moves as the draconic shapeshifter Midori, but the mix of cards and special attacks make the two decks entirely unlike one another. When you play your first match of Jaina versus Midori, you might find that Midori wins most of the time, due to some built in advantage in the deck. However, as you play more and more, you will see some advantages and cards that Jaina can make use of that turn the game in the opposite direction. Now, instead of Midori dominating with powerful moves in his dragon-form, Jaina relentlessly and repeatedly fires arrows in such a way that she wins most of the time. And again, dozens of matches later, Midori starts to creep back in, countering not just the new style that Jaina is being played with, but also keeping his old advantages in just enough that she has confronted with an entirely unexpected style of attacks.

The Blue Moon (now Blue Moon Legends) card game progresses similarly. When you first play the Vulca, a fiery race with brute strength, against the Hoax, a weaker group of historians with a few tricks up their sleeves, you might find the Vulca win, and they win strongly. After a few games, learning a bit of the deck composition, the Hoax begin to use their tricks effectively, and make the Vulca look positively lame. But slowly, it comes around again, and the Vulca, armed with knowledge of the Hoax's tricks, begin to come up with counters.

The back and forth in an assymetrical game like this is not just within a single play, but in the entire overall strategy of the multi-play game itself. As one strength is discovered, another is brought low.

Anyone who's spent any amount of time learning and playing a deep abstract game like Chess and Go will know this feeling. First you discover the power of your Queen, then games later the trickery of your Knights, and even further into your play you realize the strength of the Bishops who don't stand on the same color of squares... And that is certainly one of the reasons that Chess has been around for as long as it has, and still remains a complex game with many fans. But, I believe that a smaller scale, asymmetrical game like Yomi provides this same kind of feeling, but where the steps you take in Chess might take a hundred games (or, in Go, a thousand games), the steps in Yomi take only a dozen, but each time you take a step, you see there are further steps in a hundred directions.

And that is a real strength in trying to settle yourself if you feel like a mayfly. Instead of hopping from game to game, you can hop from character to character, deck to deck, loop around and discover new strategies, and get the rush of "new cool stuff" without abandoning games left and right. Even the same character vs. character match in Yomi takes on new dimensions every time you play.

Collectible card games have a great strength in this area, as every deck is different and infinitely adjustable. A green-red deck in Magic: The Gathering, with big creatures and direct damage as its main components, can be carefully played and its contents tweaked until it can stand strongly against most varieties of any color of deck. However, people playing these games tend to turn a mayfly's attention to getting new cards all the time, and quickly "fixing" their decks or building new ones to counter any perceived strength of another player, so less depth is explored... and Magic becomes like a microcosm of the gaming hobby, where very few people explore the depth and strengths of a particular set of cards, always looking for the next new thing.

This is less of a problem in the Living Card Games of Fantasy Flight Games, in particular Netrunner. This is a fantastic example of asymmetry: not only are there different factions with different strengths (like Yomi and Blue Moon), but each player in the head-to-head game plays with an entirely different goal and process. One player is the Corp, building up firewall fortresses to protect their secret agendas, the other is the Runner, attacking any weakness they can find. Both sides play entirely differently, and thus, provide a lot of depth to explore without a need for swapping between games, or even between factions.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that this kind of game isn't necessarily a solution to the problem that I presented in the beginning of this article. But, for me, I more and more find myself enjoying asymmetrical games because of how easily I can get a rush of "cool/new" without having to learn or buy a new game. Of course, that doesn't stop me from learning or buying new games entirely, but it is a sub-set of games that could provide others with a way to control purchasing impulses and really learn the strength of games that they otherwise might not.

A Game of Ice and Fire, Part 7: Intermission

We've set a sort of soft policy in my gaming group that as long as a majority of people are present, we will continue to game and have the missing Player Characters appear as secondary characters.  I was all set to do this for our SIF game, but I was enjoying Zoren's antics too much from the last session to leave him out when the group finally arrived in King's Landing.  In light of no game, I thought I would provide a list of characters and the story they have learned so far.  A lot of this is going to be coming to a head soon now that they will be entering King's Landing.

House Buckwell

Bannermen to House Lannister and rival to House Trevayne.  Lead by Lord Darren, father of Rosa and Aiden.  Rumor is that Rosa was to be involved in an arranged marriage but ran away.  Aiden is young, headstrong, and devoted to his family.  Currently in King's Landing to bring accusations against House Trevayne for the murder of their smallfolk.

House Thorne

Bannermen to House Tyrell.  The party has not had much interaction with them having only glanced the second son Orten Throne talking with Aiden Buckwell at a wedding.  Ser Naton, the eldest son, is said to be a skilled tourney night, though he has yet to distinguish himself.

House Vale

Bannermen to House Tyrell.  They only members of this house the party has met are Ser Armattan and his twin sister Amberley.  Through them, they learned that Lord Duncan has recently been betrayed and murdered by a Dornish knight and made off with the house's Valyrian sword, Thresher.  The two are on their way to King's Landing for the tourney and searching for the sword.

The Story Thus Far...

The events of individual sessions are in previous posts.  Here is the overarching plot so far.

The party is on their way to King's Landing for King Robert's yearly Tournament.  In addition, one of House Trevayne's main purchasers of their ore has requested a meeting to discuss new financial arrangements.

Aiden Buckwell is along the road to King's Landing as well, spreading accusations against House Trevayne for the murder of some of their small folk.  The party has learned that this deed was actually performed by a rogue knight, Lord Archay, also known as The Fox Knight, and a group of hired mercenaries.  The mercenaries are now deceased, having been betrayed by one of their own, Hamish Flowers, who was paid off by Lord Archay.  He himself was found recently murdered and robbed of his new found wealth shortly after the party spoke with him.  It is unknown who hired Lord Archay, but the running theory among the party members is Lord Darren himself.