Balance in everyday use suggests fairness or equality, but in game design it describes a family of distinct problems that require different solutions. Schell identifies twelve types of balance, including: fairness between players, challenge vs. reward calibration, meaningful vs. dominant choices, skill vs. luck ratio, short-term vs. long-term trade-offs, and freedom vs. controlled experience (Schell 2008, see source-art-of-game-design).
Key distinctions:
- Dominant strategy: a strategy that is always better than all alternatives regardless of opponent action — its existence indicates a balance failure
- Transitive balance: a clear linear hierarchy (A beats B beats C) — acceptable if intended (RPG gear tiers) but a problem in competitive play
- Intransitive balance: a rock-paper-scissors relationship where no option dominates — the preferred structure for competitive multiplayer (Sellers 2018, see source-advanced-game-design)
- Perceived vs. absolute difficulty: players experience difficulty subjectively; balance must account for perception, not just measurable parameters (Adams 2014, see source-fundamentals-game-design)
Related: game-balance, difficulty, internal-economy, systemic-depth-elegance, meaningful-decisions