Maintaining balance with a "leader" player

First thought about theme was feudalism.

Leader (king) is the the source of estates to lords (which they can pass on to fiefs) in return for tribute and/ or homage, etc

Really it's just an asymmetric game (assuming this is not a cooperative game we're talking about here). You need to balance the game in a way that makes sense for the game.. I don't see that you can get too abstract about it.

That said, I'd avoid restrictions like "The leader must NOT own above a certain amount of resources by the end of the game, to ensure they are not playing greedily". If the game isn't cooperative, then this seems unfair. Though maybe it makes sense in context. But playing "greedily" implies to me that you have a cooperative game that's being dominated by the leader. Either way, the design probably shouldn't be fixed by "The leader may not have more than 10 gold for reasons I will not provide."

TLDR: Give the leader a reason to be the leader.

I've recently been reading comic books again, and many of the leaders seen in superhero teams (for example) confer with their team members, recognize the threats they face, and between them all it's agreed on who becomes responsible to accomplish a specific task. What's more, an effective leader is listened to, and while not necessarily obeyed unfailingly, will have team members who acknowledge their role and know that what they do is going to buoy the team to success. The leader might not have to hang back all the time, but they will at least be able to maintain a "big picture" perspective.

I'm deliberately generalizing my description here so that folks aren't jammed-up talking about specific characters in their favourite comic book universe... :)

I think a team leader is the person who makes critical decisions about who does what, and when they ought to do it. I think the strengths of a leader come when they realize that they don't necessarily know it all and can't possibly do it all, and they know how to most-effectively delegate to team members so that everyone benefits.

When approaching this from a design standpoint, providing a diverse array of challenge types (not all intellectual, not all physical combat, not all magic-based, etc.) is key. Not only will this allow you to have a broad design space for asymmetrical strength-base approaches (as noted above already), but it will allow the leader player to delegate, receive feedback on the decision they've made, and then continue to make decisions by re-allocating or re-assigning resources.

The more I think about it, the more I hear dissonance.

You're talking about a situation (such as on a starship) where the players are inherently all on a team, trying to accomplish a goal together. But it's not a cooperative game.. that's why the power dynamic matters at all (if it was cooperative, there would be no problem with a leader role)

I think I'd need a concrete example scenario. The ones you present I just don't get. For example, a picky god trying to show the other gods he's the most loved.. except the other players aren't the other gods, competing for boons (which has been done afaik), but rather are the subjects. That just.. doesn't work, for the reasons you present. You can't really have a game where 4 people are doing one thing, and 1 person is doing something totally different, and the 5 people are all separate. If it was a 4-on-1 team thing, sure, but I just don't see that you could design a decent game like that.

How about a game where the Alpha player is Zeus and the other players are lesser gods seeking his favor???

The story could be that Zeus wants to appoint another guardian for Olympus in the event that he should be unable to protect the realm. Another god would step in to protect their sovereign realm from otherworldly threats.

Just my 5 cents... Cheers!

This is a tough design, I suspect.

How about if the abuelita scores points based on balance? Not exactly sure how it would work, but essentially she'll need to win based on something "positive", while at the same time effectively thwarting the other players. If her goal was to have, say, an equal number of offerings from each other player, while of course their goals are to have the most good offerings, that might work.

Obviously it needs a little more than that :)

I envision a crime family vibe with this. There's one leader or archetypal "godfather" while there are henchman and family members surrounding the leader, each with their own agendas, likes, and dislikes. Several of them simply hate one another, but due to the abuelita's influence they are forced to work together much more often than they would like. Additionally, this syndicate is only as powerful and successful as it is due to its loyalty to the abuelita. All that is changing, as the family is at the cusp of a transitional phase. The abuelita is the old lion being kicked out of its pride, so to speak.

The abuelita is attempting to maintain its control, or balance. The other players are either co-conspirators to the throne, or want to eliminate the rest of the family by any means necessary. It's not about supporting the abuelita's grasp on power (unless of course, you're the abuelita, who must choose their successor). Rather, it's about being the head of the syndicate when the smoke clears.

I imagine lots of hidden agendas, voting mechanics, and resource management. The abuelita directs other players to complete different tasks in an effort to gain resources, while other players attempt to foster their own coup without casting suspicion on themselves.

I can see this as a cooperative-competitive, social deduction game. The abuelita wins if their chosen successor is the only surviving family member, while coalitions of family members will win if they eliminate all those not part of their faction.