I agree with you that the two terms feel qualitatively different. I see LOTS of variable games (both in competitive spaces like Small World, and collaborative spaces like Pandemic) but fewer games which are asymmetric (although the bioterrorist option in Pandemic could count as that?)
For me it is the different victory conditions which particularly swing it.
There is no "bright line" division for me, but I'd agree that different victory conditions seems to be a big factor for asymmetric games. That said, in Root (which I consider asymmetric) everyone (afaik) needs to hit 30 VP to win.... so the same victory condition.
Interesting - I don’t know Root at all, but I take you word for it. Do they all have the same things to win VP, or different mechanisms?
Thinking about the first really asymmetric game I ever played, it would be the microgame Ogre - one side has troops, hovercraft, tanks, artillery… the other side has a giant cybertank. In terms of units on the board it is as asymmetric as it gets! The Ogre has to destroy the command post, the other side has to destroy or stop the Ogre; tactics vary completely between the two sides though!
In Root they have completely different mechanisms. Each faction quite literally has their own rules and type of game they are playing. Ultimately each results in VP, but how they get there couldn't be more different. (It's modeled on COIN games, so that makes sense.)
Ogre is mentioned on the VPP page at BGG! Classic example!
This game isn’t really asymetric at all. They use the same core game rules and most importantly, have the exact same method for victory. While it appears that Van Helsing is playing a player elimination game and Dracula is playing area control. In fact they are both playing a player elimination game. VanHelsing reduces Dracula’s health to zero. Dracula reduces a district population to zero. The only difference is how the ‘life totals’ are tracked. (Since this is a two-player game with ‘life totals’ and no healing, this can also be thought of a race game since players are competing againist fixed score targets.)
With that said, Dracula does have an alternate win condition, survival. If they make it to the end of three rounds, then they win. (However, survival can be lumped in as a variation of player elimination commonly used in co-op games as a win condition for the team.)
On that note, Root is really just a highly variable player power game. The core game rule for winning is reaching 30 pts before anyone else, making it a race game.
In my mind, it’s better to think of asymmetry as a multi-axis spectrum with gameplay rules, starting setup, win condition, and game type (survival, race, high score).
For reference, I am using this article as the basis for game type:
That's an interesting way to think about it! Certainly most of the rules for playing cards and winning "lanes" is the same for both sides. And you're right, although the two victory conditions appear different, they are actually quite similar. Reminds me of how the chase track in The Lord of the Rings: Duel for Middle-earth (2024) feels very different for each side... but in reality its the same number of steps for each side to win. It's not actually asymmetric, it just looks that way.
I agree with you that the two terms feel qualitatively different. I see LOTS of variable games (both in competitive spaces like Small World, and collaborative spaces like Pandemic) but fewer games which are asymmetric (although the bioterrorist option in Pandemic could count as that?)
For me it is the different victory conditions which particularly swing it.
There is no "bright line" division for me, but I'd agree that different victory conditions seems to be a big factor for asymmetric games. That said, in Root (which I consider asymmetric) everyone (afaik) needs to hit 30 VP to win.... so the same victory condition.
Interesting - I don’t know Root at all, but I take you word for it. Do they all have the same things to win VP, or different mechanisms?
Thinking about the first really asymmetric game I ever played, it would be the microgame Ogre - one side has troops, hovercraft, tanks, artillery… the other side has a giant cybertank. In terms of units on the board it is as asymmetric as it gets! The Ogre has to destroy the command post, the other side has to destroy or stop the Ogre; tactics vary completely between the two sides though!
In Root they have completely different mechanisms. Each faction quite literally has their own rules and type of game they are playing. Ultimately each results in VP, but how they get there couldn't be more different. (It's modeled on COIN games, so that makes sense.)
Ogre is mentioned on the VPP page at BGG! Classic example!
This game isn’t really asymetric at all. They use the same core game rules and most importantly, have the exact same method for victory. While it appears that Van Helsing is playing a player elimination game and Dracula is playing area control. In fact they are both playing a player elimination game. VanHelsing reduces Dracula’s health to zero. Dracula reduces a district population to zero. The only difference is how the ‘life totals’ are tracked. (Since this is a two-player game with ‘life totals’ and no healing, this can also be thought of a race game since players are competing againist fixed score targets.)
With that said, Dracula does have an alternate win condition, survival. If they make it to the end of three rounds, then they win. (However, survival can be lumped in as a variation of player elimination commonly used in co-op games as a win condition for the team.)
On that note, Root is really just a highly variable player power game. The core game rule for winning is reaching 30 pts before anyone else, making it a race game.
In my mind, it’s better to think of asymmetry as a multi-axis spectrum with gameplay rules, starting setup, win condition, and game type (survival, race, high score).
For reference, I am using this article as the basis for game type:
https://www.gamesprecipice.com/objectives/
That's an interesting way to think about it! Certainly most of the rules for playing cards and winning "lanes" is the same for both sides. And you're right, although the two victory conditions appear different, they are actually quite similar. Reminds me of how the chase track in The Lord of the Rings: Duel for Middle-earth (2024) feels very different for each side... but in reality its the same number of steps for each side to win. It's not actually asymmetric, it just looks that way.
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for explaining something that I had never quite figured out 🤔
So glad it helped! Thanks!!