The classic party game, Truth or Dare, has been a popular choice for adolescent and young-adult social gatherings for years. Our team developed a new game with similar mechanics, but with pre-written dares and a team-based structure. In this analysis, we will examine the dynamics between these two games, focusing on game mechanics, the types of fun, and dealing with inappropriate player behavior.
Truth or Dare forces players to choose between answering a potentially embarrassing question or performing a dare, but all the ideation for truths and dares comes from other players, potentially causing the game to be dry. In contrast, our game opted to pe-write dares for players, guaranteeing the minimum quality of the dares players are asked to complete. Similarly, Truth or Dare doesn’t have a built-in mechanic for a win condition, while our game offers a more organized experience, played in two teams competing to reach the center of a game board. This structure provides a clearer objective and encourages teamwork, while Truth or Dare can sometimes be overly focused on individual embarrassment.
Both games are built around creating fun through fellowship, where the primary objective of the designer was to create interactions between players that allow players to get to know one another in a casual game setting. However, they differ in the secondary types of fun that are elicited; Truth or Dare creates greater amounts of fun through expression where players create their own challenges, while the objective and team-based aspects of our game create fun through competition.
When it comes to constraining unwanted player behavior, Truth or Dare has no built-in mechanism to moderate the difficulty/vulnerability of player ideated truths or dares; this can lead to uncomfortable situations for players who have differing levels of familiarity with one another. This also forces the game to be somewhat vibe-dependent; a series of creative, witty truths or dares could lead to a great experience, but just one awkward one could leave players tentative or unable to regain the group’s charisma. While our game’s design might inherently limit some of the absolute best moments of Truth or Dare, it also guarantees that the game is able to progress in a natural manner. Additionally, the team-based structure can discourage unengaged behavior, as players are more likely to hold each other accountable and prioritize team success over individual amusement.
Throughout this analysis, it’s clear that there is a trade-off between the player generated and game-designer generated challenges for dare-styled games. However, we believe that one key benefit of the more structured approach to this kind of game is that it allows groups of unfamiliar players to build fellowship in a more approachable and constrained setting. Truth or Dare may be more enjoyable for groups of close friends, but our game provides players the opportunity to be vulnerable with boundaries and continual support from team members.
