there's something that's been floating around in my brain lately with different ttrpg systems and one thing that i feel really splits the genre down the middle is the idea of the "asymmetrical" play between the GM and the players. obviously when someone is sitting in the Game Master seat in any capacity, they hold a lot of the narrative cards that exist within the game that is being played. what i'm talking about is something different.
one of the first ttrpgs i learned how to play was dungeons and dragons, as is for a lot of other people. breaking this game down to it's core mechanical rules, the GM has two jobs, arbitrating the difficulty check (DC) level of the challenges presented to the players and controlling non-player characters (NPCs), which use stat-block sheets that outside of specific unique things that add challenges to the situation and don't often use the player classes, are nearly identical to a player's character sheet. so, by the logic here, a DnD dungeon master uses in and abouts the same tools that players use to interact with the game. NPCs roll for their own stat checks, use their own weapons, have to face up against DC checks, etc. DnD to me feels like something quite easy to understand when trying to learn it because outside of really specific situations, both players and DMs are operating under the exact same set of rules. nothing is asymmetrical about the play that is presented by the game. this is nothing to speak about houserules/homebrew/rules changes that people can introduce and the flavor they can add to make interacting with the mechanics of DnD more unique, i'm talking strictly about what we think about when someone says DnD.
i present the above about DnD to contrast with cypher system/numenera. this system radically alters the position of the GM within the setting of the game. players make a character and character sheets based on the [blank] is a [blank] who [blank]s format, in which players choose a focus, a type, and descriptor to fill in those blank areas. within this, each of those three things contribute "moves" and abilities that players can use against NPCs and situations. when a player character wants to use these abilities or take damage, they instead spend/drain points out of their three stat pools: might, speed, and intellect. NONE of this carries over into what the GM does. the GM is again the arbiter of difficulty levels of tasks, much like the Dnd DM, but when it comes to NPCs and other situations, NPCs have hit points (HP) and all other situations are resolved through the narrative. there are absolutely no "stat blocks" that a cypher system GM needs to consult or look at, they can judge the difficulty of a situation based on what is happening in the story. the tldr on this is a player "makes a cypher system character" and uses the "rules" presented on that sheet and the GM makes scenarios that have pure numerical value that the players must contend with. everything else is just narrative flavor. cypher system requires that you change the way you think about how to play mechanically complex ttrpgs so the learning curve is a little high for all people involved in a game, however i think that the difficulty of the GM side of the game is mitigated a little bit by the asymmetrical gameplay since they are not bound by the rules of the "statblock" (especially not having to manage a myriad of combinations of focus, types, and descriptors) and can run things in a more free form or fluid way.
i don't know if one of these methods of play are better than the other. they have their strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day these are mechanics as a means to an end to play a game and, if youre like me, to tell a story collaboratively.
ive been watching a lot of videos about board games and people playing board games, which ttrpgs branch from obviously. there's plenty of games that have asymmetrical gameplay, either through hidden role stuff like coup or the thing board game, or games that straight up pit players against each other like sniper elite or whitehall. the thing about these asymmetrical systems is that the game itself is the arbiter of the rules, there is no GM managing how the game progresses. but then there's things like mafia, werewolf, or blood on the clocktower that requires that there's a GM/storyteller/rules arbiter there to deliver information and in a way a narrative due to the secret actions of the players. however their role is a strictly mechanical one, blood on the clocktower i think has the potential to push the role of the storyteller as close to something that can interact with player mechanics similarly, however their role, still exists to serve the player's actions the majority of the time. i think namely the way that these examples also differ is that they don't really have a lot of influence on the actual "story" of the situation of the game. these games don't have campaigns that the game runners can write and run, they might have formats and scripts and there might be an emergent narrative from the gameplay, but they serve a game before they serve a story.
ive talked a lot about board games, but i bring them but because they are so mechanically strict in order to "work" as a game. video games are similar in that way. they have strict systems that are defined by the mechanics, engine, code, etc. that prevent "incorrect" play so the systems facilitating the game do not break. ttrpgs are different because through the rules and the fact a person is arbitrating them and the story, there's a lot more "wiggle room" and space for allowances to temporarily break the game in a way that won't change a lot about the total game itself. think about how missing a "draw" phase in a board game could mess up the entire flow because a card is now missing from play vs. a DM telling a player that they'll allow them to use their piece of bread to solve the current problem, even if it's silly and logically shouldn't work.
i'm talking about this at all because i am trying to make ttrpgs, or at least ive made one ttrpg system and have used it for multiple games at this point. it is asymmetrical in it's design and functions similarly to cypher system in a way, but i do want to appease the people that know dnd as their probably only other system so theres parts of it in there for them too.
the challenge i keep seeing with all types of symmetrical or asymmetrical play is how the mechanics of either system work with each other. symmetrical play creates i guess a "parallel" experience in that all mechanics align with each other, with the mechanics interacting and intersecting at different points. asymmetrical play creates a naturally adversarial or opposing force. the kind of combative attitude between DMs and players has been a meme or a trend of sorts over the years and people can approach a game however they want, but i feel like thats a fundamentally wrong approach. games of all kinda should be challenging or present some kind of challenge but the nature of game design is making it so the challenge is still approachable and there's fun to be had in overcoming odds.
what im wholly concerned with is creating systems, mechanics, and games that are fun to utilize for both players and GMs and i feel like the asymmetrical approach is a little bit better for facilitating that due to the natural power imbalance of the player vs GM. i don't know if i've "cracked it" yet but by looking at all of these game systems and how the mechanics of the rules arbiter and the players interact with each other is probably the learning approach to take.
if you've read this far, do you have any ttrpg recommendations to look in to or ones you've enjoyed where the mechanics are symmetrical or asymmetrical? or just really different kinds of ttrpg systems with GMs and how their mechanics are totally different than dnd?
