Tribalism is tearing America apart. People vote on party lines regardless of individual merits. Racism is on the rise. The internet is, at the same time, atomizing individuals and connecting them to an echo chamber of like minds.
Many boogeymen have been implicated: the internet, President Trump, the gradual drifting from religion, too much affluence. But underneath it all, it is the tribalism instinct that drives it, and it is that instinct that everyone fights against in order to have a society any larger than a neighborhood.
Dunbar's Number is a fairly well known and accepted concept: that the human brain was evolved to maintain only a certain number of social relationships. (It's around 150.) Multiple rationalizations occur in a person's brain when one is asked to consider people outside of that circle: racism, apathy, compassion fatigue, NIMBY. However, our organizations grow larger than that, from our nation, to our state, to our city, all the way down to our jobs. We can be a cog in a machine, being of use to them, but the companies and states and nations are literally incapable of caring for us in return - not only the entities, but the people that make up those entities.
There are various mechanisms that are at work, attempting to alleviate the absolute tribalism of pockets of people: patriotism, religion, compassion. Even some of the more distasteful methods, such as racism, still pull against the tribal instinct to try and encompass something larger. However, we are in need of even more inclusiveness. You can see the attempts to include us all; Disney's "It's a Small World" comes to mind. But such solutions are barely effective. Engendering a worldly inclusiveness seems impossible.
So, what's a good substitute? Perhaps we can funnel tribal instincts into a beneficial expression of it. Right now, fan bases are doing that exact thing. Race and creed are lost when everyone on your side of the field is wearing the same color jersey. Some may mourn or mock the loss of individuality of a sports fan, but those that do, don't understand that acceptance and tolerance cannot come on its own. Until we breed it out of us, humanity needs to hate. Sports allows hate, while also constantly demonstrating that 'it's just a game', thereby calling out those who take it too far. Sports, and its viewing, allows hate to happen, and cleanses the palette of hate afterward.
One might make a case for other types of fandoms - movies, games, music. There might be a heated argument for who is the best guitar player of all time. However, these arguments are not practiced, expected displays of competitiveness. There must be an element of competition. There must be an element of harnessed hate and violence. Other fandoms can adopt these elements, but they are not baked into the cake, like sports is.
I tend to look at sports as an evolution of human behavior. Once humans began to have abundance (the start of farming is a good place to mark it), the competitive spirit took on a harmful element, in part. This can be seen in movie westerns - the gunslinger tames the West, but then has no place in civilized society when it comes to the frontier. The competitive spirit is then counter to civil goals. Societies had to develop a way to harmlessly funnel that energy. Societies that developed sports (and sports fandoms) do not destroy themselves from the inside.
You might hear of violence, even murder, due to sports fandoms. However, it is always seen as frivolous, and that's the secret to why sports fandoms are important. Racism, violence against the LGBT community, and war itself will always be deadly serious. But if a people's prejudices can be put aside for a different kind of tribalism - one that doesn't take itself so seriously, one that allows for violent behavior without the accompanying destruction - then maybe that type of tribalism is the key to peace.
(Roll Tide, Titan Up, Chop On, and BB King was the greatest guitar player of all time.)
Monday, November 27, 2017
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Pet Project
Hey, Pal.
Hey Buddy.
How’s your project coming along?
Incredibly well. It’s done everything I set out to do.
Incredibly well? I wasn’t aware that your project was anything more than a universe simulation. Did something happen to it?
Something happened in it, yes. You see, I’ve been messing around with spaces of finite dimensions. Starting very small, you see. This particular dimension has three and a half of them.
Half a dimension?
Well, it's not really a dimension. It's like half of a time slider. I created three spatial dimensions, but while I was playing around with constraints, something happened. Everything in the universe started moving along the time axis, in one direction, at a steady pace. I was just about to unstick that when I noticed that the spatial dimensions started behaving in an interesting way, if you get my drift. I could look in at any given point on the timeline and see matter moving. So I let it go just to see what would happen.
Hey, I get it. If you set everything to one direction in time, that’s a pretty good way to simulate causality in a limited number of dimensions.
That’s exactly what happened! There were no higher dimensions in the simulation, but the matter in the spatial dimensions were able to move about and interact with itself, creating new, different results as the time dimension continued to move.
Sounds like memory would fill up pretty fast, if you indexed the units of time.
Right. I had to curve each dimension around on itself so that the numbering system could repeat. I could have curved time around itself too, but for now I just let it play out, ending the simulation after everything reached steady state. The simulation is definitively finite, instead of being a simulated infinite. I mean, once it reaches steady state, there's no reason to keep it going. But there's enough to work with before that happens.
So I’m guessing something happened in the universe.
Yes. Life developed.
What do you mean, developed?
I mean, at one point on the simulation’s timeline, life did not exist, and then it did exist.
Oh, I get it. Because time was incrementing, the simulated life strands seemed to come into being at one end, and blink out the other.
Yep. each "strand", as you say, is still archived as soon as it is done populating, but within the universe itself, each life begins and ends. Weird stuff. I even got sentience.
In such a short time? And with so few dimensions? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
It’s the causality that did it, made from that stuck time dimension. In each increment of time as it moves, the causality of matter in life makes the next, um, printed layer of the strand. Add to that your normal iterative process with a positive feedback loop, and sentience forms in the strands farther to the right on the timeline. But because it formed in this universe, these creatures can only observe an infinitely small slice of time. They see the three spatial dimensions, and an infinitely small slice of the fourth.
What a strange existence. I mean, I’ve seen finite-dimensional beings, but never one that can observe only part of a dimension.
Yeah. They think of time as something that goes away or can be lost, instead of just looking left or right like we do. They think at some point, they cease to exist, when really it’s just that their reference point goes beyond where they are positioned.
Well, that makes sense, because if causality only occurs at a slice of time as it moves from left to right, and it sweeps past the strand of life, then once the timeline is past, it’s frozen in time, at least until the timeline comes back around again.
What’s worse, is that life and sentience came into being on an incredibly small scale, in relation to the size of the universe, finite though it is.
They must be scared out of their minds. Tiny existence in a large universe, one-way time that will inevitably pass them by, an inability to look backwards or forwards in time. Too wide open, and too constrained, all at the same time.
Yeah. I’ve been looking into what thought cycles these types of beings can create. What they can accomplish. The answer is, they can conquer pretty much everything within their reality, if we take the entire time loop into consideration. Nearer to the right side of the timeline, they pretty much used up all the matter, organized the subspace into computational order, and lasted long enough to know that they can’t get out of their universe on their own. They assume there’s something outside, but they can’t get to it. They really want to though. They want things so very strongly! I guess that comes from their fear. Ending. What’s it like to end?
I have no clue. Do you?
Well...I tried following strands from beginning to end. I wanted to study how sentience formed, not just that there was a consciousness, but how and why it existed as it did. I learned why they thought the way they did. Fear, like I said. I even tweaked a few variables of a few strands to see if I could change things. Then I wrote some manual lines of code into them.
To do what?
Well, to communicate with them. Direct communication warped them, so I did my best to try and get my message across without making them warped.
I suppose that’s a worthy endeavor, assuming they wanted to communicate. Did it help you understand them?
Yes. I edited a strand so I could go in, snoop the data it was processing, and add some of my own. I added a bit of knowledge of the outside world to a few guys. Gave them some words to say. It ended up that I couldn’t make very big strands; the other strands would stop my edited strand from ‘printing out’. They do this to each other a lot. From their point of view, they end the existence of other strands, though in reality they just cut the strands short. It’s pretty mean to force a strand to not be as big as it wants to be, but from their vantage point it is so much worse!
So what did you learn? Or were you just wanting to say hello?
I mean, I said hello many times, but their reactions were always to stop a strand’s growth or to put distance between themselves and ‘me’. It was hard to form a line of communication. I did learn a few things however. Everything they do is predicated on that restriction of time, as it moves. I know I told you they fear it, but it motivates them like nothing else. It makes some of them work together, and against others. They spend many cycles thinking about it, revving up their physical essences. If they think too much about it, it shortens their strands. Their forms are strained by the weight of it.
You’ve created a torture chamber, it seems.
I know, and it bothers me. I ended up putting an interactive module in the archives out of guilt, so that their archives can talk with one another and observe the universe from outside it. I can even go into the archives and talk to them, and they seem completely healed of their madness. They don’t resent the outside world, after it’s all over.
I would assume so. The archive wouldn’t have a fractured time dimension, so they would have nothing to worry about.
Right. I’ve talked to them there, in the archive, and they become rational. Like us. They begin to understand what it means to live in higher dimensions. I can’t really bring them into n-dimensional space, but they can exist happily in the archives. It’s the least I can do. But the originals still exist in the universe, frozen in time except when the timeline marches over their strand. I can’t delete them. If they didn’t already exist in the universe, they wouldn’t exist in the archives. They can’t get to the archives without having to go through this universe’s existence. But at the same time, their existence is torturous, or so it seems to me.
Me too. But what can you do? You can’t delete them. You can’t cure them. You can’t talk to them directly.
Nothing, really. I just keep going in and tweaking a few lines of code here and there. I send messengers. I give strands an opportunity to understand what is happening to them. I give them hope. I can’t tweak too much because it’s all already been archived and I’d rather not have a run-in with version control.
Yeah, screw that.
It’s my universe. These strands are mine. It’s my fault they’re suffering, well, I mean, it's endemic to the world they live in. I’m just trying to help them not be tortured. They'll be fine, eventually. That's the message.
It’s my universe. These strands are mine. It’s my fault they’re suffering, well, I mean, it's endemic to the world they live in. I’m just trying to help them not be tortured. They'll be fine, eventually. That's the message.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Rick and Morty and the ever-approaching crisis of nihilism
I feel as if a certain aspect of the American secular society is reaching a tipping point of nihilism, atheism, and abyss-watching. It feels like it has come to a peak, or at least new heights, in the Adult Swim TV series Rick and Morty.
The show reflects the fears of their producers, Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland. These fears are seen in multiple places, both in the show and in interviews:
- Many characters have visceral reactions to the insanity of the multiverse. Beth and Rick drink heavily. Morty repeatedly freaks out, and his voice, supplied by Roiland, is a shrill, ever-climbing howl of madness. The insanity that they witness is, at times, Lovecraftian in nature, due to the influence of HP Lovecraft on sci-fi and horror, but it is just one metaphorical flavor of the infinite.
- In an interview, the creators talk about how the questions and topics posed in the show "keeps them up at night".
- They have minor characters whose characteristics include existential pain or angst, such as Mr Meeseeks or the butter-passing robot.
- Rick's repeating phrase of "Don't think about it" is similar to the nihilist band-aid of unrelated distractions that are nearly the entirety of an nihilist's life. This is opposed to the "related" distractions that directly address the problem, such as religion, spirituality, searching for purpose, and tribal politics.
I tend to see undercurrents of this fear in witty, science-related (or at least fully in agreement with materialism) pieces of entertainment: Bojack Horseman, pop-science YouTube channels Kurzgesagt and Exurbia, and anything directly produced by Adult Swim. It seems to me that without belief, a subset of Americans are banging their head against the absurdity of mere existence, and that that is beginning to attract a wider audience.
Hey, I like Rick and Morty, and can even appreciate the nihilistic themes, but at the same time I am a Christian. Observing this phenomenon and myself in it, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a person's belief per se, but rather a type of person, that would cause one to gravitate toward these types of shows. I can understand shouting "Wubba lubba dub dub!" though I should have no (spiritual) need to do so myself. Perhaps this angst is universal, something that defines the purpose of faith, but I could not speak for others.
So where are these types of people going? I assume people as a whole will eventually find peace from existential horror, through faith or distraction, and the allure of the show will decline with age, except as nostalgia. I believe that each person cannot avoid finding an answer to the horror, in their own way. Creating a fetish out of existential angst is a young man's game, made for those who have not yet been worn down. Not only that, but even this particular technique of fetishization itself will become passe, as all fads do. Will Rick and Morty grow with its audience, or is it a relic of its age? I believe it will eventually end as all TV shows do, and then be brought back 15 years later as nostalgia. Those watching it will have come to peace in some way. Even a memory of the worst panic attack in the world can become wistfully nostalgic once enough time has passed.
The show reflects the fears of their producers, Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland. These fears are seen in multiple places, both in the show and in interviews:
- Many characters have visceral reactions to the insanity of the multiverse. Beth and Rick drink heavily. Morty repeatedly freaks out, and his voice, supplied by Roiland, is a shrill, ever-climbing howl of madness. The insanity that they witness is, at times, Lovecraftian in nature, due to the influence of HP Lovecraft on sci-fi and horror, but it is just one metaphorical flavor of the infinite.
- In an interview, the creators talk about how the questions and topics posed in the show "keeps them up at night".
- They have minor characters whose characteristics include existential pain or angst, such as Mr Meeseeks or the butter-passing robot.
- Rick's repeating phrase of "Don't think about it" is similar to the nihilist band-aid of unrelated distractions that are nearly the entirety of an nihilist's life. This is opposed to the "related" distractions that directly address the problem, such as religion, spirituality, searching for purpose, and tribal politics.
I tend to see undercurrents of this fear in witty, science-related (or at least fully in agreement with materialism) pieces of entertainment: Bojack Horseman, pop-science YouTube channels Kurzgesagt and Exurbia, and anything directly produced by Adult Swim. It seems to me that without belief, a subset of Americans are banging their head against the absurdity of mere existence, and that that is beginning to attract a wider audience.
Hey, I like Rick and Morty, and can even appreciate the nihilistic themes, but at the same time I am a Christian. Observing this phenomenon and myself in it, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a person's belief per se, but rather a type of person, that would cause one to gravitate toward these types of shows. I can understand shouting "Wubba lubba dub dub!" though I should have no (spiritual) need to do so myself. Perhaps this angst is universal, something that defines the purpose of faith, but I could not speak for others.
So where are these types of people going? I assume people as a whole will eventually find peace from existential horror, through faith or distraction, and the allure of the show will decline with age, except as nostalgia. I believe that each person cannot avoid finding an answer to the horror, in their own way. Creating a fetish out of existential angst is a young man's game, made for those who have not yet been worn down. Not only that, but even this particular technique of fetishization itself will become passe, as all fads do. Will Rick and Morty grow with its audience, or is it a relic of its age? I believe it will eventually end as all TV shows do, and then be brought back 15 years later as nostalgia. Those watching it will have come to peace in some way. Even a memory of the worst panic attack in the world can become wistfully nostalgic once enough time has passed.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Bits of your homebrew D&D world that players probably do not care about (rant)
- Your proprietary name of a thing that already has a name. Unless you have a dedicated group, fully bought in to your homebrew world, they won't care that the goblin language is called "Grok'nee" or that their name for the world is "Pan'par". There's a certain sense of racial disconnect that would be bigotry in the real world, but can be safely and even necessarily employed here. To humans, and even to elves and dwarves, goblins speak Goblin.
- The name of rulers that have no bearing to the story. If you're on the border of a nation, delving deep into dungeons, who cares what the king's name is? More broadly, you as the DM have to be prepared for the event that your carefully prepared world, nation, or local history may never be revealed. The players may never come across the need, and they may not even care even if they are in need of knowing.
- Your DM PC. Your PC, tagging along just in case someone else takes over DMing duties, is an NPC. Period. No amount of Mary Sue-ing or comic relief will elevate them, in the PC's mind, to the level of importance in the narrative as a PC. It won't even register in their brains as important as a villain. The PCs (and the villains) are the main characters. Period.
- Descriptions of treasure that are not coins, gems, plot-related, or magical. That golden candelabra is going to be sold anyway. Unless you have PCs who adorn their abodes with loot instead of interior decorating properly, no one will ever care.
- Any gravitas an NPC might bring. Any trope will be lampshaded. Any emotion will be brushed off. Any motive will be ignored. Those that the PC's kill are the enemy.
- Nuance. Way back in the West End Star Wars RPG, they impressed upon the GM and players that the game, like the movies, were black and white. Don't let moral quandaries get in the way of a good romp. I feel like that GMs of all games should take that to heart, unless the game makes a specific point to question the status quo. (V:tM, Paranoia, etc.) Me, personally, I love complex stories that make you think, but D&D may not be the best place for it.
Some of these things are traps the DM should avoid. Some of these things are the fault of lazy players who do not care about the work the DM put into his world. It takes communication and finding the right players to make the perfect fit. Good luck!
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Manpower: the unit of measure of automation
I wrote a Tweet and I wanted to expound upon it a bit:
I'd like to propose a unit of measure: the # of humans a robot would replace. Similar to horsepower for cars, we call it, say, manpower (mp)
You strict mathematical types might be thinking, "So is this a unit of power? Are you going to set an arbitrary amount, much like James Watt had to do with horsepower? What's the point of declaring this?" The answers are 1) sort of, and 2) not really, and 3) to phrase the oncoming automation apocalypse into modes of speaking and thinking that we can grasp.
So, is this a unit of power? Sort of. Power is work over time, for certain definitions of work. We could break work down further into force over distance, and so on from there. Here the similarities between horsepower and "manpower" ends. The purpose of creating the term "horsepower" was to create a comparison between the power it took for a horse to pull something (a cart, a plow, etc) and compare it to that same straight-line motion that a machine could duplicate. In this way, horsepower was a unit of measure on par with any other. We could, in the strictest sense, use manpower the same way - by measuring how many people are required to pull a cart of a plow, and substitute the equal amount of mechanical muscle.
However, this mental exercise is to address automation, so let's say, instead of equating work to moving an object in a straight line, we take the broader meaning of work: whatever a person does in an 8 hour day or 40 hour week. And, since manpower is going to be termed a more general "work" over time, we can use this rate to compare automation to human endeavors, the same way autos were compared to horses by creating a unit of measure that clearly illustrated the transition.
So, you working at your job is 1mp.
If a robot "does the work of ten men", it would have 10mp.
If a robot replaced 1 full-time worker but operated constantly (24/7/365), it would have ~4.2 mp ((24 hr day/8 hr day) * (365 days per year for a robot / ~261 work days per year for a person)).
Hopefully you can see how this would ease the presentation and calculation of automation replacement as we go forward.
If someone has already thought of this concept (and I am quite certain someone probably already has), please point it to me so I can read further on it, and possibly add links to that material as well.
I'd like to propose a unit of measure: the # of humans a robot would replace. Similar to horsepower for cars, we call it, say, manpower (mp)
You strict mathematical types might be thinking, "So is this a unit of power? Are you going to set an arbitrary amount, much like James Watt had to do with horsepower? What's the point of declaring this?" The answers are 1) sort of, and 2) not really, and 3) to phrase the oncoming automation apocalypse into modes of speaking and thinking that we can grasp.
So, is this a unit of power? Sort of. Power is work over time, for certain definitions of work. We could break work down further into force over distance, and so on from there. Here the similarities between horsepower and "manpower" ends. The purpose of creating the term "horsepower" was to create a comparison between the power it took for a horse to pull something (a cart, a plow, etc) and compare it to that same straight-line motion that a machine could duplicate. In this way, horsepower was a unit of measure on par with any other. We could, in the strictest sense, use manpower the same way - by measuring how many people are required to pull a cart of a plow, and substitute the equal amount of mechanical muscle.
However, this mental exercise is to address automation, so let's say, instead of equating work to moving an object in a straight line, we take the broader meaning of work: whatever a person does in an 8 hour day or 40 hour week. And, since manpower is going to be termed a more general "work" over time, we can use this rate to compare automation to human endeavors, the same way autos were compared to horses by creating a unit of measure that clearly illustrated the transition.
So, you working at your job is 1mp.
If a robot "does the work of ten men", it would have 10mp.
If a robot replaced 1 full-time worker but operated constantly (24/7/365), it would have ~4.2 mp ((24 hr day/8 hr day) * (365 days per year for a robot / ~261 work days per year for a person)).
Hopefully you can see how this would ease the presentation and calculation of automation replacement as we go forward.
If someone has already thought of this concept (and I am quite certain someone probably already has), please point it to me so I can read further on it, and possibly add links to that material as well.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Breaking down the previous post and adding more
So let's see if we can state in simple terms what's going on in this half-made card game so far:
- Standard game mechanics, nothing to write home about: players, individual play areas, one draw deck, cards in hand or in play area, used cards go to the discard - so far, standard game mechanics
- Unusual game mechanics: face-down discard pile, win condition not chosen until murder weapon is drawn
- Simple explanation: scandals played face down, including murder. Scandals face up bring consequences. Murder also makes you lose but ends the game. Action cards do action things. Somewhat like a Magic clone: creatures = characters, action cards = sorcery/instant/interrupt, and too much scandal/caught murdering = out of life points.
I haven't played the currently Kickstarted game Exploding Kittens, but I think I might have developed a similar playing conceit: a game of hot potato with effect cards to mitigate being caught. Granted, people who have not played the game have expressed concerns with how boring/simple the mechanics would be. It's certainly a road sign for me, saying that I need to add more.
What mechanics could be added to involve more complexity to the game? I don't mean action card mechanics, I feel that that will come in time, and is actually a sort of a second order complexity. Fluxx does this on purpose; its rules are almost completely read off the cards near the end of the game. It's fun in a confusing way, but I'd like to make the cards no more complex as I have to in order to create the perfect level of complexity.
Another iffy decision that needs to be made is: how heavy do we go on the scandal part? This could be a game merely about scandal without so much emphasis on murder, if need be. But that would change the mood of the game from the players being outstanding citizens solving a murder to players being scoundrels, all trying to embarrass the other characters. It would be very similar to Gloom. I wouldn't want to copy it too closely.
What if we went in G's direction and tried to get into the nittier grittier about solving a mystery, using the cards? The scandal part would be a side mechanic to this main mechanic of solving the murder. This takes me somewhat back to square one. The difficulty of creating the scene in specific details is enormous, since you'd have to have a card for every possible weapon or scenario, like Clue (wrench, lead pipe, axe, and so on and so on...) I could reuse the Capability/Motive/Opportunity mechanic. Perhaps if someone was proven to have all three (placed face up in their playing area), that could be the lose condition for the murderer. The only problem is, that I wouldn't want to create a sort of Schrodinger's murderer condition, whereupon the murderer who is caught (and loses the game) did not get selected until late in the game, and so not given the chance to outwit everyone else. I'd want a mechanic where the murder is determined early on (in secret, drawing the right card), and then that player spends the rest of the game avoiding getting caught.
Some more card ideas:
- Guilt-wracked: You must play this card on any scandals in your play area immediately, or you must play immediately after you play a face-down card thereafter. (Insert bad effect here)
- Mob-justice: Play any time. Players vote to lynch one follower.
- Standard game mechanics, nothing to write home about: players, individual play areas, one draw deck, cards in hand or in play area, used cards go to the discard - so far, standard game mechanics
- Unusual game mechanics: face-down discard pile, win condition not chosen until murder weapon is drawn
- Simple explanation: scandals played face down, including murder. Scandals face up bring consequences. Murder also makes you lose but ends the game. Action cards do action things. Somewhat like a Magic clone: creatures = characters, action cards = sorcery/instant/interrupt, and too much scandal/caught murdering = out of life points.
I haven't played the currently Kickstarted game Exploding Kittens, but I think I might have developed a similar playing conceit: a game of hot potato with effect cards to mitigate being caught. Granted, people who have not played the game have expressed concerns with how boring/simple the mechanics would be. It's certainly a road sign for me, saying that I need to add more.
What mechanics could be added to involve more complexity to the game? I don't mean action card mechanics, I feel that that will come in time, and is actually a sort of a second order complexity. Fluxx does this on purpose; its rules are almost completely read off the cards near the end of the game. It's fun in a confusing way, but I'd like to make the cards no more complex as I have to in order to create the perfect level of complexity.
Another iffy decision that needs to be made is: how heavy do we go on the scandal part? This could be a game merely about scandal without so much emphasis on murder, if need be. But that would change the mood of the game from the players being outstanding citizens solving a murder to players being scoundrels, all trying to embarrass the other characters. It would be very similar to Gloom. I wouldn't want to copy it too closely.
What if we went in G's direction and tried to get into the nittier grittier about solving a mystery, using the cards? The scandal part would be a side mechanic to this main mechanic of solving the murder. This takes me somewhat back to square one. The difficulty of creating the scene in specific details is enormous, since you'd have to have a card for every possible weapon or scenario, like Clue (wrench, lead pipe, axe, and so on and so on...) I could reuse the Capability/Motive/Opportunity mechanic. Perhaps if someone was proven to have all three (placed face up in their playing area), that could be the lose condition for the murderer. The only problem is, that I wouldn't want to create a sort of Schrodinger's murderer condition, whereupon the murderer who is caught (and loses the game) did not get selected until late in the game, and so not given the chance to outwit everyone else. I'd want a mechanic where the murder is determined early on (in secret, drawing the right card), and then that player spends the rest of the game avoiding getting caught.
Some more card ideas:
- Guilt-wracked: You must play this card on any scandals in your play area immediately, or you must play immediately after you play a face-down card thereafter. (Insert bad effect here)
- Mob-justice: Play any time. Players vote to lynch one follower.
Monday, January 12, 2015
A murder mystery card game...or just trying to get a good mechanic for it
Ditching my last concept has brought me full circle again back to the basic premise of what I wanted to do; a murder mystery card game that creates the illusion of solving a different murder every time without a) resorting to simple subtractive deduction like Clue, and b) not becoming a too-involved ersatz roleplaying game that would require too much setup time by a "game master".
Let's face it, these RPG-like board and card games exist in part because running a roleplaying game is a time intensive pursuit. Using the straight-jacketed rules of a board game is what the average gamer likes, because it is such a pleasure to uncover the entirety (or as much of it as you can) of permutations in a rule set. It's fun to be good at something. It's fun to be an expert.
There's nothing wrong with designing a good board game with a few mechanics thrown together in a new way, and off you go. I played, for the first time, Grave Robbers From Outer Space last night. It was a great game that I highly enjoyed. The scene it was trying to set - that we are all movie directors, and each players sends monsters into each other's "movies" - worked beautifully. Yet looking at it, it is a collection of simple mechanics. Your characters in your movies are similar to creature cards in Magic/object cards in Fluxx, etc. You have monsters that are attacks. You have effect cards that you hang on to at the right time. This makes the game very similar to Magic and the dozens of clones out there. (Is there some kind word that describes this sort of card game type? A card game that comprises in part a personal possession area that plays an active part in the game, in addition to your hand? Magic yes, spades no. I'd call it a "personal space" or "territorial" card game, if it was mine to declare.) Add a few extra game mechanics, and boom, off you go.
As an aside, it truly was a boom that Wizards of the Coast couldn't keep a lid on the "personal space", and tapping game mechanics (or at least lease it out...I never heard what the end result of that was). The only downside is that many card games use those mechanics and the process can get stale. Still, the board game renaissance is keeping things fresh.
Everything below this is a scratch pad for designing the game.
- "personal space" game?: I'd like to avoid having it be another Magic clone, but unless there is some major breakthrough, there will have to be elements of personal playing spaces in the game. Maybe if I could make the hand as important as what's on the table; cards played in front of you is public knowledge about you, whereas cards in your hand are private details? And then a third card would be action cards, of course.
- Some of the cards played in your "personal space" could also be played face down, creating intrigue...something secret exists about the player, but what? The play space would have to be less touchable than the player's hand, since the traits played face down would be bad.
- Determination of killer beforehand: a separate deck or some combination of cards beforehand? or during? or even scapegoating? That could work: not determining a killer but proclaiming a killer...making someone lose.
- One of G's main things he wants in his game (though we might still collaborate) is that he wants each player has some sort of damning fact that they try to hide. If it is revealed, that player loses...loses the game, loses points? Dunno, but it adds a twist. Waiting to see what he wants out of it.
- looking at other player's hands: I would think that in a game of figuratively playing your cards close to your chest, you would literally do this as well, until someone force you to show.
- creating a trail of clues: cards that would affect a card in your hand. If you have "murder weapon", then "leaving fingerprints" would mean you discard the weapon immediately but have to hold on to the fingerprints card.
- Catching people in the act: perhaps some cards could force another player to reveal something damning about them, if they have it. Sort of a "Go Fish" mechanic.
- Discard pile face down. This could simulate the ditching of evidence (getting rid of the murder weapon, for example)
So, let's start putting together a card game. Here's a gimmicky change: since solving a mystery means gathering clues, perhaps everyone starts with no cards at all, and draws one at a time? The murder weapon, the motive, the actions you can do, even the character you are, grow as your hand size grows.
Some random thoughts:
- A scandal revealed should penalize them in some way? Lose a turn? If they lose the game then it's too much penalty. Perhaps someone with some scandal face down could be susceptible to blackmail...
GAME PLAY RULES
The last person to have killed something goes first, the continues clockwise. Each person starts with no cards at all!
Each turn consists of drawing a card and playing it. Some cards must be immediately played, some cards can be held for use later. You do not discard from your hand.
There are three types of cards: Character Cards, Scandal Cards, and Action Cards.
- Character Cards: Play these cards in front of you, face up. The first character you play represents you, any further characters you play are your allies.
- Accountant: During your turn, you may draw from the discard pile instead of the draw pile.
- Butler/Maid: During your turn, you may give any card in your hand to any player.
- Hooligan: You must draw a card from the discard pile. If there is no discard pile, draw from the draw deck.
- Inheritor: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to discard one scandal card from any player from play.
- Judge: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to look at another player's hand.
- Socialite:
- Oil Tycoon:
- Private Investigator: During your turn, you may choose to draw two cards, play one, and discard the other.
- Scandal cards: Play these cards in front of you, face down. If a scandal is turned face up while in your play area, you lose your next turn. Scandals remain, face up, in front of you unless another card disposes of them.
- Bankrupt
- Criminal Record
- Divorced
- Fudged the Numbers
- Having an Affair
- Murder Weapon - Place this card in front of you, face down. You are the murderer for the rest of the game ...even if you discard this card.
- Action cards: These cards are normally played during your turn unless noted otherwise. They can be held in your hand until needed.
- Left a Damning Clue: Discard any one scandal or the murder weapon if they are in play in your possession, and place this card face down in your area.
- Blackmail: If someone who has a revealed scandal in play, plays a card that forces you to turn anything in your playing field face up, this card can be played immediately to cancel that effect.
- Planted Evidence: Play in front of another player. Any combination of three Planted Evidence or Left a Damning Clue cards in front of a player (face up) means the player is accused of murder and the game ends.
- Scandal Revealed! Play this card to turn over a card in another player's field of play. (1)
- Alibi: Play in front of you. None of your scandal cards can be turned face-up.
- Red Herring: Play in front of you, face down. Cannot be discarded.
- Gathering the Witnesses: All allies are discarded. - Damn the Consequences! If you have a scandal face down in your area, you may reveal it in order to turn a card in someone else's play area face up. This results in your next turn being lost.
If there are five of any combination of Scandals, Left a Damning Clue, or Planted Evidence in a player's area, that player is out of the game. If that player is the murderer, then the murderer is never found, and everyone loses.
So far, there's a bunch of mechanics for scandals, but not a lot for actually solving the murder. More to come...
Let's face it, these RPG-like board and card games exist in part because running a roleplaying game is a time intensive pursuit. Using the straight-jacketed rules of a board game is what the average gamer likes, because it is such a pleasure to uncover the entirety (or as much of it as you can) of permutations in a rule set. It's fun to be good at something. It's fun to be an expert.
There's nothing wrong with designing a good board game with a few mechanics thrown together in a new way, and off you go. I played, for the first time, Grave Robbers From Outer Space last night. It was a great game that I highly enjoyed. The scene it was trying to set - that we are all movie directors, and each players sends monsters into each other's "movies" - worked beautifully. Yet looking at it, it is a collection of simple mechanics. Your characters in your movies are similar to creature cards in Magic/object cards in Fluxx, etc. You have monsters that are attacks. You have effect cards that you hang on to at the right time. This makes the game very similar to Magic and the dozens of clones out there. (Is there some kind word that describes this sort of card game type? A card game that comprises in part a personal possession area that plays an active part in the game, in addition to your hand? Magic yes, spades no. I'd call it a "personal space" or "territorial" card game, if it was mine to declare.) Add a few extra game mechanics, and boom, off you go.
As an aside, it truly was a boom that Wizards of the Coast couldn't keep a lid on the "personal space", and tapping game mechanics (or at least lease it out...I never heard what the end result of that was). The only downside is that many card games use those mechanics and the process can get stale. Still, the board game renaissance is keeping things fresh.
Everything below this is a scratch pad for designing the game.
- "personal space" game?: I'd like to avoid having it be another Magic clone, but unless there is some major breakthrough, there will have to be elements of personal playing spaces in the game. Maybe if I could make the hand as important as what's on the table; cards played in front of you is public knowledge about you, whereas cards in your hand are private details? And then a third card would be action cards, of course.
- Some of the cards played in your "personal space" could also be played face down, creating intrigue...something secret exists about the player, but what? The play space would have to be less touchable than the player's hand, since the traits played face down would be bad.
- Determination of killer beforehand: a separate deck or some combination of cards beforehand? or during? or even scapegoating? That could work: not determining a killer but proclaiming a killer...making someone lose.
- One of G's main things he wants in his game (though we might still collaborate) is that he wants each player has some sort of damning fact that they try to hide. If it is revealed, that player loses...loses the game, loses points? Dunno, but it adds a twist. Waiting to see what he wants out of it.
- looking at other player's hands: I would think that in a game of figuratively playing your cards close to your chest, you would literally do this as well, until someone force you to show.
- creating a trail of clues: cards that would affect a card in your hand. If you have "murder weapon", then "leaving fingerprints" would mean you discard the weapon immediately but have to hold on to the fingerprints card.
- Catching people in the act: perhaps some cards could force another player to reveal something damning about them, if they have it. Sort of a "Go Fish" mechanic.
- Discard pile face down. This could simulate the ditching of evidence (getting rid of the murder weapon, for example)
So, let's start putting together a card game. Here's a gimmicky change: since solving a mystery means gathering clues, perhaps everyone starts with no cards at all, and draws one at a time? The murder weapon, the motive, the actions you can do, even the character you are, grow as your hand size grows.
Some random thoughts:
- A scandal revealed should penalize them in some way? Lose a turn? If they lose the game then it's too much penalty. Perhaps someone with some scandal face down could be susceptible to blackmail...
GAME PLAY RULES
The last person to have killed something goes first, the continues clockwise. Each person starts with no cards at all!
Each turn consists of drawing a card and playing it. Some cards must be immediately played, some cards can be held for use later. You do not discard from your hand.
There are three types of cards: Character Cards, Scandal Cards, and Action Cards.
- Character Cards: Play these cards in front of you, face up. The first character you play represents you, any further characters you play are your allies.
- Accountant: During your turn, you may draw from the discard pile instead of the draw pile.
- Butler/Maid: During your turn, you may give any card in your hand to any player.
- Hooligan: You must draw a card from the discard pile. If there is no discard pile, draw from the draw deck.
- Inheritor: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to discard one scandal card from any player from play.
- Judge: During your turn, you may skip drawing a card in order to look at another player's hand.
- Socialite:
- Oil Tycoon:
- Private Investigator: During your turn, you may choose to draw two cards, play one, and discard the other.
- Scandal cards: Play these cards in front of you, face down. If a scandal is turned face up while in your play area, you lose your next turn. Scandals remain, face up, in front of you unless another card disposes of them.
- Bankrupt
- Criminal Record
- Divorced
- Fudged the Numbers
- Having an Affair
- Murder Weapon - Place this card in front of you, face down. You are the murderer for the rest of the game ...even if you discard this card.
- Action cards: These cards are normally played during your turn unless noted otherwise. They can be held in your hand until needed.
- Left a Damning Clue: Discard any one scandal or the murder weapon if they are in play in your possession, and place this card face down in your area.
- Blackmail: If someone who has a revealed scandal in play, plays a card that forces you to turn anything in your playing field face up, this card can be played immediately to cancel that effect.
- Planted Evidence: Play in front of another player. Any combination of three Planted Evidence or Left a Damning Clue cards in front of a player (face up) means the player is accused of murder and the game ends.
- Scandal Revealed! Play this card to turn over a card in another player's field of play. (1)
- Alibi: Play in front of you. None of your scandal cards can be turned face-up.
- Red Herring: Play in front of you, face down. Cannot be discarded.
- Gathering the Witnesses: All allies are discarded. - Damn the Consequences! If you have a scandal face down in your area, you may reveal it in order to turn a card in someone else's play area face up. This results in your next turn being lost.
If there are five of any combination of Scandals, Left a Damning Clue, or Planted Evidence in a player's area, that player is out of the game. If that player is the murderer, then the murderer is never found, and everyone loses.
So far, there's a bunch of mechanics for scandals, but not a lot for actually solving the murder. More to come...
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
The problem with the murder mystery card game
Okay, it's a complete wash. After playtesting it with people and weathering enough criticism that would make lesser men cry, I can put into words what the problem is.
The impetus of Are You A Werewolf? is the fear of being eliminated. It is visceral and immediate. The impetus of a murder mystery (in general) is the cerebral accomplishment of solving the mystery. To cast a murder mystery in the guise of an easily playable party game is to be at odds with itself. A reason AYAWW works with large numbers of players is that people CAN leave the game.
So, there are two directions I can go: one is to make a more fully playable party game (in which case, the murder mystery genre would be scrapped in favor of a more exciting setting), or it could go into a fully rendered thinking-man's game, complete with roleplaying and/or deductive reasoning clues that would eventually point to the murderer as a matter of logic, instead of trying to divine guilt through social deduction. The current state of what I was working on was to create rules for a cerebral game based on social game rules, and it didn't work.
I want to buy Clue: the card game, to see how that game is played, and see if there is a mechanic or two that could tweak my delight in deduction without reinventing the wheel.
EDIT: Found the rules to Clue: the card game here: http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/308/ProjectReqs/ClueCardGame/ClueCardGameRules.html
It's similar to the board game: the murderer, the location, and the vehicle are selected and must be deducted by eliminating all other possibilities.
There are some differences I still want in my game: I want the murderer to be a player, chosen in secret. Perhaps this is decided at the beginning or during the game. I'm thinking of a gin rummy type of game: collect the 5 W's (or c/m/o: see last entry) and call gin, or in this case say you are the murderer. Place the cards face down, see if people can guess them? How can this game be something other than just a who/with what/where game like Clue?
The impetus of Are You A Werewolf? is the fear of being eliminated. It is visceral and immediate. The impetus of a murder mystery (in general) is the cerebral accomplishment of solving the mystery. To cast a murder mystery in the guise of an easily playable party game is to be at odds with itself. A reason AYAWW works with large numbers of players is that people CAN leave the game.
So, there are two directions I can go: one is to make a more fully playable party game (in which case, the murder mystery genre would be scrapped in favor of a more exciting setting), or it could go into a fully rendered thinking-man's game, complete with roleplaying and/or deductive reasoning clues that would eventually point to the murderer as a matter of logic, instead of trying to divine guilt through social deduction. The current state of what I was working on was to create rules for a cerebral game based on social game rules, and it didn't work.
I want to buy Clue: the card game, to see how that game is played, and see if there is a mechanic or two that could tweak my delight in deduction without reinventing the wheel.
EDIT: Found the rules to Clue: the card game here: http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/308/ProjectReqs/ClueCardGame/ClueCardGameRules.html
It's similar to the board game: the murderer, the location, and the vehicle are selected and must be deducted by eliminating all other possibilities.
There are some differences I still want in my game: I want the murderer to be a player, chosen in secret. Perhaps this is decided at the beginning or during the game. I'm thinking of a gin rummy type of game: collect the 5 W's (or c/m/o: see last entry) and call gin, or in this case say you are the murderer. Place the cards face down, see if people can guess them? How can this game be something other than just a who/with what/where game like Clue?
Friday, December 19, 2014
card game logistic update
One of the things I wanted to do in the game was to avoid added math/complexity without purpose. Sometimes I look at roleplay-related games that do not depend specifically on minute levels of data and think that the addition of numerical values (such as hit points) to what can be described as a binary condition (alive/dead) is sometimes fluff on the part of game designers. Sure, a game can use a number, an adjective, or any other sort of description to determine the condition of a player or character in a game, but when the action has to be fast, or if the tactical aspect of a game is not as important, things can be pared down to their bare minimum, or even combined to another feature of the game so as to remove as many obfuscating points as possible. Hit points becomes alive/dead. Mana points can be set to a certain number of actions per round. The underlying logic is indeed an exercise in mathematical analysis, but the playing of the game doesn't have to be.
Then there's the other problem of obfuscation: details within a game that add no additional tactical benefit. One could say that the whole roleplaying aspect of Are You A Werewolf, where the facilitator names the town and describes how the victim was killed each night, is a part of this. Yes, it adds depth to the game and I find it highly enjoyable, but it is optional and should not be enforced. I believe that the "professions" of each character I had in the previous post about the card game falls into this category. Except for the special cards (Murderer, Politician, Patsy, etc), the cards handed out to people should be the same. Maybe call it "Partygoer" or "Suspect".
In the end, I feel that the enforcement of professions on these cards, without any gameplay affect, might be too much. Let the players roleplay (or not) as they will.
Then there's the other problem of obfuscation: details within a game that add no additional tactical benefit. One could say that the whole roleplaying aspect of Are You A Werewolf, where the facilitator names the town and describes how the victim was killed each night, is a part of this. Yes, it adds depth to the game and I find it highly enjoyable, but it is optional and should not be enforced. I believe that the "professions" of each character I had in the previous post about the card game falls into this category. Except for the special cards (Murderer, Politician, Patsy, etc), the cards handed out to people should be the same. Maybe call it "Partygoer" or "Suspect".
In the end, I feel that the enforcement of professions on these cards, without any gameplay affect, might be too much. Let the players roleplay (or not) as they will.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Murder Mystery Card Game rules
Just a placeholder for this card game I'm thinking up. It's a party game similar to Mafia or Are You A Werewolf. This entry will be edited as the game takes shape.
I know you can't copyright game mechanics, but like most people, I can't help but put my creations out on the internet vainly for everyone to see. Let's just hope I try to make the game and don't do nothing again, like every time I have a great idea. Lazy me.
BARE BONES BASIC RULES
DELUXE RULES
PROFESSIONS
Come a landsman, a tinsman, a tinker or a tailor
a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier or a sailor
a rich man, a poor man, a fool or a witty
Don't let her die an old maid, but take her out of pity.
(Possible name: Take Her Out Of Pity, from the song)
Any list of professions must have three variations (so as not to memorize the C/M/O list of any one profession). This also prevents the murderer from being easily found due to pretending to be a unique profession that another player already has.
Of course, if you just throw out professions willy nilly, the deck would get huge, and the types of professions would be harder to memorize. I already know there's going to be a profession list on one of the cards for reference.
SPECIAL CARDS
What do these rules imply?
It's different from Mafia. It's not all social deduction, until it is.You might think there's some easy deduction going on. Anyone who answers no to a C/M/O question is automatically not the murderer. Easy, except...you cannot win the game through logical deduction alone unless you are very lucky. The game lures you in with a simple logic puzzle, then hits you with a decision to made on incomplete information. It might take a pen and paper to keep track. Perhaps the facilitator could keep track.
Since most professions have 2 out of 3 C/M/O's most of the time, It is thought that any group, after all the turns have gone, have eliminated ~1/3 of the players as suspects. This, of course, may vary through luck, but it's obvious that there has to be guesswork involved. This is where the "social deduction" comes in. Adding in the ability to ask people unrelated questions (including, "Are you the murderer?") adds in the opportunity to watch people faces; how do they lie? Are they hiding something?
Players should familiarize themselves with the professions on the cards, for if they become the murderer, they will have to pretend to be another profession (which a sharp sleuth would catch if it was made up).
UNDERLYING MATH
The underlying math dictates the gameplay, much like Mafia. It is shown that the Mafia normally keeps ~50% chance of winning any game, but in reality is likely to win due to "social deduction" hence the name of the genre. Due to the fact there is never more than one killer, the mechanics to keep the chances of success balanced in my game are modified. Given that each player has a 1/3 chance of being ruled out (if someone asks them a C/M/O question they can respond 'no' to), the choices for murderer are 2/3 of the people. (Of course, luck might provide more or less help depending on who gets to answer 'no'.) There is a vote that removes a second person, but how often should that happen? By designating it as every three turns, it narrows the suspect list down to ~1/3 of the players. This keeps the possible suspects at roughly 1/3 no matter how many people are playing. This makes the average number of final suspects very small: 2 in a six player game, 3 in a nine player game, and so on. This is why it is suggested that, of the special cards, the Patsy is added first. It artificially adds an additional suspect to give the murderer a better chance of not being chosen. Then, as the number of players rises, the card additions give greater and greater advantages to the innocents to counter the number of final suspects as it goes up.
The number of players dictates the chances of the murderer getting caught in several different ways. First, the greater the number of players, the harder it is to find the murderer (though as I explained above, there are mechanics that help). Also, if there is a number of players not divisible by 3, the players get an extra round of voting. Therefore, a group of players whose number is 3x+1 has the best chance of finding the murderer, as it gives you an extra vote for the fewest number of additional players.
The smaller the number of players, the more luck is involved in finding the murderer. The chances of eliminating greater than 1/3 of the players as suspects is high if there are only 6 players, as compared to 18, due to a lack of precision.
I know you can't copyright game mechanics, but like most people, I can't help but put my creations out on the internet vainly for everyone to see. Let's just hope I try to make the game and don't do nothing again, like every time I have a great idea. Lazy me.
BARE BONES BASIC RULES
- For 6 or more players.
- A facilitator is desired; at a bare minimum, someone has to set up the deck and deal them out.
- The facilitator starts the game by taking out the murderer card from the deck and shuffling the rest. Then he or she counts out enough cards for the party, minus one, then adds the murderer card. The resulting stack should have enough cards for one card for each player. The cards are shuffled and dealt, face down. The cards must remain completely secret from everyone else until the end of the game!
- The facilitator announces the setup. ("There has been a murder tonight! The murderer is someone in this room!")
- Each card has a profession (or is the murderer) and some yes/no combination of capability, motive, and opportunity (C/M/O) - almost always 2 out of 3, but the murderer has 3 out of 3 C/M/O.
- The last player who has lost a pet goes first.
- During a player's turn, the player gets to ask two kinds of questions.
- One yes/no question about C/M/O to a second player of their choosing. ("Did you have the opportunity to commit this murder?") The second player must tell the truth about what is printed on their card, whether the answer is yes or no.
- The first player may ask any number of other questions of any sort to any and all players during the turn, including "Are you the murderer?" or what their profession is. The questioned player may lie about any question not related to C/M/O. These additional questions can be asked before or after (or both) the one C/M/O question. The turn is over when the first player has no further questions.
- Play continues clockwise. The next player can ask questions of a different or the same person, as they choose.
- After 3 of the players take a turn, everyone votes on who is the murderer. This person goes to "jail". If it is the murderer, game is over, everyone but the murderer wins. If not, play continues. The player in jail loses his or her turn for the rest of the game (if they haven't taken it already), but they can vote.
- Play continues with another 3 people taking their turns. After another three people take their turn, voting occurs again.
- Each person only gets one turn in the game, unless they are jailed before they can take it. When the last person's turn is used up, the party has one last vote to try and jail the murderer. (The game cannot end on two votes in a row!)
- If the murderer is still not caught, the game is over and the murderer wins.
DELUXE RULES
- At the beginning of the game, the facilitator uses his or her boundless imagination to create a scenario. Then, he or she explains who was murdered, and how, where and with what the victim was murdered. Each time a player is asked a C/M/O question, they must explain why the answer is no, or why they are not the murderer if the answer is yes, in the vein of the profession on the card. ("As a famous actor, I simply would not have had the opportunity to slip away and murder the victim!")
- Alibis: at any time during the game, two or more people can proclaim they are each other's alibi. This means that both players are exempt from being voted on. People who have already said no to a C/M/O question (and are automatically not the murderer), cannot have alibis. Either player in an alibi can choose to cancel it at any time. If someone holds an alibi with the murderer at the end of the game, that person is a double loser! (Optional Rule: the next game a double loser plays, the loser has to take the "Drunkard/Fool" card face up before the cards are even dealt!)
PROFESSIONS
Come a landsman, a tinsman, a tinker or a tailor
a doctor, a lawyer, a soldier or a sailor
a rich man, a poor man, a fool or a witty
Don't let her die an old maid, but take her out of pity.
(Possible name: Take Her Out Of Pity, from the song)
Any list of professions must have three variations (so as not to memorize the C/M/O list of any one profession). This also prevents the murderer from being easily found due to pretending to be a unique profession that another player already has.
Of course, if you just throw out professions willy nilly, the deck would get huge, and the types of professions would be harder to memorize. I already know there's going to be a profession list on one of the cards for reference.
SPECIAL CARDS
- Special cards are professions that can be added to the deck. It is suggested that they be added in this listed order.
- Patsy: Has all three C/M/O, but is not the murderer. (Suggested for 6+ players)
- Politician: Can take his turn, even if jailed. (Suggested for 9+ players)
- Drunkard/Fool(?): Has none of the C/M/O. (Suggested for 12 + players)
What do these rules imply?
It's different from Mafia. It's not all social deduction, until it is.You might think there's some easy deduction going on. Anyone who answers no to a C/M/O question is automatically not the murderer. Easy, except...you cannot win the game through logical deduction alone unless you are very lucky. The game lures you in with a simple logic puzzle, then hits you with a decision to made on incomplete information. It might take a pen and paper to keep track. Perhaps the facilitator could keep track.
Since most professions have 2 out of 3 C/M/O's most of the time, It is thought that any group, after all the turns have gone, have eliminated ~1/3 of the players as suspects. This, of course, may vary through luck, but it's obvious that there has to be guesswork involved. This is where the "social deduction" comes in. Adding in the ability to ask people unrelated questions (including, "Are you the murderer?") adds in the opportunity to watch people faces; how do they lie? Are they hiding something?
Players should familiarize themselves with the professions on the cards, for if they become the murderer, they will have to pretend to be another profession (which a sharp sleuth would catch if it was made up).
UNDERLYING MATH
The underlying math dictates the gameplay, much like Mafia. It is shown that the Mafia normally keeps ~50% chance of winning any game, but in reality is likely to win due to "social deduction" hence the name of the genre. Due to the fact there is never more than one killer, the mechanics to keep the chances of success balanced in my game are modified. Given that each player has a 1/3 chance of being ruled out (if someone asks them a C/M/O question they can respond 'no' to), the choices for murderer are 2/3 of the people. (Of course, luck might provide more or less help depending on who gets to answer 'no'.) There is a vote that removes a second person, but how often should that happen? By designating it as every three turns, it narrows the suspect list down to ~1/3 of the players. This keeps the possible suspects at roughly 1/3 no matter how many people are playing. This makes the average number of final suspects very small: 2 in a six player game, 3 in a nine player game, and so on. This is why it is suggested that, of the special cards, the Patsy is added first. It artificially adds an additional suspect to give the murderer a better chance of not being chosen. Then, as the number of players rises, the card additions give greater and greater advantages to the innocents to counter the number of final suspects as it goes up.
The number of players dictates the chances of the murderer getting caught in several different ways. First, the greater the number of players, the harder it is to find the murderer (though as I explained above, there are mechanics that help). Also, if there is a number of players not divisible by 3, the players get an extra round of voting. Therefore, a group of players whose number is 3x+1 has the best chance of finding the murderer, as it gives you an extra vote for the fewest number of additional players.
The smaller the number of players, the more luck is involved in finding the murderer. The chances of eliminating greater than 1/3 of the players as suspects is high if there are only 6 players, as compared to 18, due to a lack of precision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)