If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same.
Rudyard Kipling, If…
I hear a lot about ‘balance’ in board games. And it pisses me off.
Of course, not everyone uses the term in the same way, but there is certainly a large, vocal subset of commentators who directly equate the virtue of balance with a close finish. More accurately, perhaps, said commentators look at any Eurogame that delivers a close finish and happily declare “it’s balanced”: the twin implications being that this is empirically, unquestionably a Good Thing — and that if it didn’t then that would be quite the reverse.
This thinking is very much a byproduct of modern Eurogames, which, by their commonly understood definition, are neither simple race games nor games of survival. The winner is neither the ‘first past the post’ nor the ‘last man standing’. No-one would label Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly as Eurogames.*
In both those games, victory is clear-cut and absolute. And a miss is as good as a mile. The mistake, I think, is to read Eurogames the same way.
Here’s an example: I played a 4-player game of Egizia a little while ago. When the game ended, after an hour’s play, all four of us had scored exactly 100 points. This, in my book, is not a ‘success’. This is not a ‘Good Thing’. This is not the triumphant result — and hardly the ideal metric — of the designers’ expert understanding of the art and craft of game design.
The directionality of my argument is important. I am not arguing that a game that contains the potential for a close finish is bad — and all my example has to say about Egizia is that it contains just such a potential. I am simply arguing that a close finish is no definition of quality, and should not be seen as some Platonic ideal. ‘Balance’ is no virtue if it’s been carefully engineered to be inevitable.
Games should be fun and they should be fair — and it’s reasonable to surmise that the latter is necessary for the former. But a four-way tie is neither. Fairness — and this is just as true in games as it is in everything else — isn’t about equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity.
So my plea to the game designer is a simple one: Don’t rob the victor of his victory, nor the loser of his loss. Where, after all, would be the fun in that?
* Interestingly, the game that defined the Eurogame genre, The Settlers of Catan, actually does have a ‘first past the post’ winning condition. It may have given the world the ‘victory point’, but it also gave its players a specific target. In this sense, you could argue that it no longer properly inhabits the genre it originally created.