How do I plan a setup that starts players in comparable but not identical positions?

Start with the choices players can make early, rather than a list of decorative differences. Ask what each player can do in their first few turns and what might affect their ability to pursue a reasonable plan.

List a few factors that influence those choices. Depending on your game, these might include starting resources, distance to an objective, access to an action, or a constraint on the first move. Treat the list as a design hypothesis, not a universal formula.

A promising difference changes *how* a player approaches a decision without making one position’s options plainly better. For example, players might have similar resources, but one chooses which resource to spend first while the other chooses which route to take. A difference is more concerning if it removes a meaningful option or creates an advantage that continues regardless of the player’s decisions.

Write the intended effect of each difference in one sentence. If the only purpose is “to make the starts different,” consider simplifying it or testing it as an optional variant.

Use a comparison sheet to make your assumptions visible. You do not need a precise balance score. Compare the same factors for each position and describe how they affect an early choice.

For example, you might write:

• Starting options: Position A can build first; Position B can scout first.
• Intended difference: The players face different opening decisions.
• Possible concern: One action might unlock more choices than the other.
• Question to test: Can both positions reach a useful first action without giving up their only viable plan?

These are invented examples, not recommendations for a particular game. Replace them with your own rules and factors. Compare opportunity, not just totals: equal quantities may still differ in usefulness if one option can be used in more ways.

Mark differences that could affect later choices, too. A specific question about what players can do will give you more to observe than asking only whether the starts feel fair.

Keep the interesting part and prepare alternatives around the risky part. If a special starting ability makes an opening distinctive, for example, try a version where it is limited to the opening, costs a choice, or is available to the other player in a different form. These are test options, not guaranteed fixes.

When possible, change one major feature at a time. If you alter the resource, route, and first action together, a test may show that the setup feels different without showing why. Prepare two or three versions only when each one tests a clear question, and label that question in your notes.

During a test, record observable events: which choices players considered, which options they skipped, and whether an early difference continued to matter. Ask what choices felt available, but don’t treat one opinion or one game as proof. If the result is unclear, revise your question or test another version.

Copy this for each pair of starting positions. Keep descriptions concrete, and leave the outcome open until you have something to observe.

Starting-position comparison sheet

• Game version: [name or draft number]
• Early decision being tested: [decision]
• Shared assumptions: [rules, resources, or conditions that are the same]
• Position A: [starting details]
• Position B: [starting details]
• Comparable opportunities: [what each player can reasonably attempt]
• Intended variation: [what differs and which choice it should create]
• Possible lasting advantage: [how a difference could affect later choices]
• Alternative version: [one change to test]
• Playtest observations: [choices made, options skipped, effects that persisted]
• Next step: [keep, revise, or test another version, with a reason]

Before the test, check that each difference has a purpose and an observable question. Afterward, use your notes to decide what to keep, revise, or test again. The sheet organizes the comparison; it cannot establish balance by itself.