I played Codenames, which is one of my favorite games of all time. The mechanics of Codenames are as follows: there are two teams, and one person on each team is the clue-giver each round. There is a grid of words laid out for everyone to see, but only the two clue-givers can see which words are theirs vs. the other team’s vs. the “assassin card”. Based on this information, they take turns saying one single word and the number of cards that word relates to, and their teammates have to guess which words are theirs. Whichever team guesses all their words first wins, but if a team lands on the assassin card, the game ends and they have lost.
Codenames deals with balance in a few ways. Because the teams take turns and are racing to guess all their words, the game would theoretically be asymmetric as the first team to go would have an advantage. The creators addressed this by giving the first team an extra word to guess, making it as balanced as possible in this regard.
Codenames also deals with balance between strategies. There are several strategies in this game: you can try to get many cards in one turn and risk guessing wrong or give very precise clues for fewer cards, for instance. Also, guessers can decide to save their guess for later if they are unsure, giving them an extra guess for the next round but risking that the other team might pull ahead/win in their turn. In both these examples, neither strategy is obviously better, making it well-balanced.
The main way Codenames balances game objects is by the transitive relationship: as discussed previously, the more “powerful” a clue or guess – i.e. the more cards a team can get in one round – the more costly it is, as there is a greater risk of guessing incorrectly. Players thus have to weigh this cost/benefit ratio and determine which strategy to use.
Codenames is very well-balanced, making it a satisfying playing experience for everyone.