Squares and Colors

Let's talk game balance.

In order to really have this discussion, we need a reasonable lexicon, an understanding of the history of tabletop gaming, and a firm grasp of design theory.

So let's talk lexicon, right? First step in attempting to resolve a perceived issue is to break things down to bare principles, build a lexicon for all of those parts, and then start questioning assumptions.

So what the hell is balance, anyway? Why don't we fiddle with a metaphor for a bit, and see where that gets us.

Let's say that we have two boards for two games. One board is alternating white-and-black, with each player one of the colors. Both colors have an identical piece on the board, with the exact same capabilities - say movement and the ability to capture the other piece.

Pretty damn boring.

Let's say the other board is all kinds of crazy. The board itself is a kaleidoscope of colors, with no clear rhyme or reason to the pattern - some spaces on the board are tiny and misshapen triangles, while others are huge and pentagonal-shaped. Each player has a collection of pieces of an assortment of colors, labeled in some manner so that each player knows which piece is theirs. All of the pieces are unique and have weird capabilities, like being able to nuke all pieces on the same color space by self-sacrifice, crazy movement capability, whatever. Each player has an essentially random number of pieces, with random capabilities.

Interesting... I don't think the second board (let's call it "Color Game", or CG) is sufficiently antithetical to the first one (let's call that one "Square Game", or SG). Let's see if we can induce such a status in CG.

Rather than a random number of pieces with random capabilities, let us say that each player's allotment of pieces is determined by the number of articles of clothing the player is wearing. The relative power of each piece is determined by the article of clothing that birthed it - so a really big, poofy, tye-dyed dress would give you some ridiculous monster of a piece, while a plain white sock gets you a nigh-useless pawn-equivalent.

Let's get even crazier - let's say that, in particular, women's garments are always significantly better than normal pieces (the game designer says that this is to encourage women to play the game, of course). So dresses, brassieres, and say high-heel shoes are just plain better piece-makers than t-shirts or jeans.

Then let's say that certain game elements are decided by other weird things. Who goes first is determined by which player is the most east-facing (rather than a coin flip, as in SG). If some of the board has different illumination than other parts (say a nearby window allows sunshine on a quarter of the board), pieces in shade get a strength boost.

Okay, enough crazy, I think. Let's contemplate.

Okay. Let's say we have two groups of players - let's call them "hardcore" and "casual." The hardcore player will do whatever he can to optimize the situation to his advantage; the casual player just wants to play.

In Square Game, the casual and hardcore players are even. There are no rules minutae to manipulate, no crazy circumstances to exploit. It's just the board, your piece, and your opponent's. It is a level playing field - raw skill determines the outcome.

In Color Game, the hardcore player will do whatever it takes to win. Even if he's a guy, he'll wear high-heels and ensure that the game is played by an east-facing window, to ensure he goes first and to ensure some amount of sunlight - but not too much, of course: the board will be positioned such that, when the game is played, the hardcore player has the sunlit-advantage.

In both games, the casual player just sits down at the table and does their best.

SG-players will complain that CG is ridiculously unbalanced and broken. Too many variables to manipulate, too many circumstantial modifiers. SG is clean, clear-cut; easy to learn, difficult to master, they might say.

Meanwhile, CG-players will mock SG for its simplicity, for its lack of depth and vision, for the inability of players to learn its ins and outs and to truly master the game.

Hardcore players of both games will find ways to mock the casual players of their game. In SG, there will be a commonly-accepted and expected opening gambit, to which a retort will be found, and so on and so forth; deviating from the expected opening moveset will open oneself up to mockery and "learn to play noob." In CG, casual players will be exploited for their unwillingness to cross-dress, their lack of concern for cardinal directions, and their inattention to the state of the sun at the time the game is played.

SG is nothing but balance. CG is anything but.

This warrants further contemplation, I think. I'll work on figuring out where this example is going.