When considering game balance, fairness is not the only concern

One of my favorite cartoons, by Charles Barsotti, shows a hot dog excitedly saying, “Hey everybody, we’ve been invited to a cookout!” I share this with my classes when I teach decision analysis to emphasize that different people (or, more generally, “agents”) have different goals.

I was thinking about this point recently after a discussion here a couple weeks ago about the first-player advantage in Risk. Commenter Ken Williams suggested solving the problem by alternating games. In considering why this seems like a bad idea to me (beyond the impracticality of playing several games of risk back to back), I realized that the relevant issue here is not fairness but rather is fun, or playability. After all, for fairness alone you only need to randomize who starts first and that solves the problem. But, if there’s a huge first-player advantage, the game still might not be so playable. It’s not always a lot of fun to play a game if you know to start with that you’re gonna lose.

1 thought on “When considering game balance, fairness is not the only concern

  1. You should check out some of the "German-style Boardgames".

    Here's part of the Wikipedia entry for one of my faves, Settlers of Catan:

    The game has rapidly become popular in part because its mechanics are relatively simple, while its dynamics are quite complex. The game is well suited for family play, since no one gets eliminated, and players who are behind can strive towards goals that are within their reach.

    They're also faster to play than Risk.

Comments are closed.