I played Coup, which is a physical card game created by Rikki Tahta intended for groups of 2-6 and ages 14+. Coup is a bluffing gaming that blends elements of deduction, probability, and strategy. After hours of playing with my friends, unique decision-making patterns emerged, such as deception, strategic risk-taking, and evaluating the trustworthiness of others. In the game’s mechanics, players are given two face-down cards that represent their “lives”. The goal is to eliminate all other players’ lives to be the last player remaining. The game also has a currency system, where players can collect, steal, and spend coins on their turn. Each card contains one of five roles, each with a specific ability, and players can claim any role during their turn. Since players’ roles are hidden, and knowing that I might need to lie to stay competitive, I found myself balancing aggressive tactics and cautious strategies. These dynamics helped strengthen certain aspects of my communication style, such as maintaining composure when bluffing, analyzing the tone and body language of others, and taking calculated risks. However, it also exposed some weaknesses, including overthinking and second-guessing others’ actions, which led to missed opportunities.
Coup stands out from other bluffing games like Poker, Mafia, and Among Us due to its focus bluffing with defined roles in a contained environment. Although Poker is similar in that it involves bluffing, currency, and probability, Coup centers on deception through role-specific actions with no betting involved. Additionally, Mafia and Among Us have a different structure and objective, where the primary focus is group collaboration to identify and vote out the “imposter”. Coup’s free-for-all (FFA) format emphasizes individual tactics more and does not involve team play.
When my friends and I played with the FFA format, we encountered a flaw that made the endgame less enjoyable. A “coup” mechanic forces a player with 10+ coins to eliminate another player, and we discovered that the optimal strategy is to hold onto coins as the endgame neared. This is because the first person to “coup” was at a disadvantage due to third-party opportunism – a strategy when a player refrains from conflict as two opponents fight, then strikes when the winner is weak. As a result, the endgame became predictable and boring. When we discussed this scenario, my friend said, “Whoever ‘coups’ first always loses because when they’re forced to coup a player, they’re in turn couped by last player alive. The first to coup gets to choose who wins.” My illustration below outlines this scenario:
This flaw prompted us to iterate on the design. We reconsidered the Players element of game design and changed the type from player vs player to team vs team. This change altered the dynamics of the game to create a more cooperative strategic environment. Players no longer to avoid performing a “coup”, and the game became more about team performance and collective strategy. We enjoyed playing in teams much more. Now, players think beyond their own hand and consider the team’s position and resources. I also realized that the Aesthetics of the game evolved. The emotions evoked shifted from individual suspense to a joint thrill where excitement stems from teamwork. This iteration enhanced the game’s depth and introduced greater social interaction.
Ethics
I believe that lying in games does not constitute morally wrong action because it is framed within a specific context where all players understand that deception is part of the game. The key distinction is that games like Coup create an environment where deception is accepted and necessary for victory. In this controlled setting where everyone has shared understanding, lying is used as a strategic tool, whereas deception in real life often harms relationships and erodes trust. Games are special in that they are detached from reality and allow behaviors like bluffing without impacting one’s relationships or moral integrity.
