Why Asymmetric Games Still Need Symmetric Systems

Interactivity in tabletop games can be controversial. Some people think it is an essential component of the experience, while others don't mind multiplayer solitaire. Interactivity encourages players to see the game from their opponents' perspectives and work around their strategies. But this can only happen when players have some way of predicting what others will do. An action that affects another player but is not predictable may as well be a random event, because it has no impact on the target's strategy. The most direct way to create predictability is through symmetry: ensuring that the interactions work the same way for both players.

Symmetry makes predicting your opponent easier because their game state is likely to be very similar to yours; you foresee what they will do by imagining what you would do. Traditional abstract strategy games are very interactive because they are completely symmetric, aside from turn order. Even when asymmetries are introduced in the setup, such as in Diplomacy, as long as all players are using the same mechanics, interactions can be anticipated through self-projection

Modern games increasingly favor asymmetry, however. Cards are a frequent source of asymmetry, especially in customizable card games. In Magic: The Gathering, there are so many cards released that even experienced players don't know everything that might be in a deck. For new players, the problem is even worse because they don't yet have a good sense of what types of interaction are possible: Is it common to force players to discard from their hand? Are artifacts easy to destroy, or difficult? Is land destruction possible? Asymmetries require learning the game independently from multiple different perspectives, raising the barrier to entry for new players. Until they understand their opponents' tools, they default to focusing on their own position.

To compensate for asymmetry, we can introduce a simple and symmetric interface between players. Each player may have their own complex puzzle to solve, but interactions are mediated through a shared layer that all players understand. For example, in Root, the main form of interaction is combat: You roll two dice, the attack deals hits based on the higher one, and the defender deals hits based on the lower one. If you see a group of enemy warriors moving towards you, you know what to expect, and if you see undefended buildings and tokens, you know how to profit from them. Warriors, buildings, and tokens work the exact same way in combat for almost every faction. The faction asymmetries are hidden instead in different costs, scoring implications, and constraints. Everything that is unique and difficult to understand is one or more steps removed from the point of interaction. The symmetric interface of combat ensures that the implications of an opponent's public-facing actions are clear even when their faction works very differently from yours.

Symmetry in games allows even new players to react to their opponents, but asymmetry removes this shortcut. Meaningful interactivity requires restoring a shared model, but this model need not include everything relevant to the opponent; it only has to cover the points at which they interact.