Argument / Analysis
This past weekend, I played The Resistance: Avalon designed by Don Eskridge, a board game designed for both friends and strangers. Avalon’s team-based competition, discussion mechanic, and bluffing dynamic effectively bring together both strangers and friends by cultivating an intense shared motivation between team members while also allowing prior relationships to both flourish or be subverted. Playing Avalon highlighted how I quickly form strong relationships with others when we share similar goals and how I’m willing to disregard existing relationships within the context of a game.
Avalon’s incorporation of the formal element of players through team competition combined with the dynamic of bluffing helps bring together both strangers and existing friends. I was playing Avalon with a group of players who ranged from complete strangers to new friends. As part of the “evil” team, I was paired with three other players who I didn’t know very well. However, by the end, another player helped me plead my case after I slipped up. After the game, she mentioned how “regardless of the game, [she] couldn’t stand to see [me] being attacked.” Even though we didn’t know each other before the game, the dynamic of bluffing and the element of team competition strongly incentivized us to work together and trust each other. Since we were pretending to all be part of the good team, we were motivated to come to each other’s defenses whenever we were challenged.
Additionally, the mechanic of discussion and hidden voting elevates the importance of prior relationships during gameplay. These two mechanics lead to the dynamic of bluffing and strategic behavior analysis as players are forced to defend themselves and claim their innocence. Here, a strong relationship with a person can play a major role as you may know more about their personality or tells, which can lend you information about which role they are pretending to be. For example, one player correctly deduced that another player was on the evil team because “[they] typically would speak more when she bluffs.” However, these existing relationships can also be subverted. Merlin successfully evaded detection by the evil team because their close friend thought “she [was] usually more nervous when she [was] hiding something.” These aspects play a large role because of the amount of hidden information in the game. There is not enough information to fully deduce what has happened, so you must rely more on reading into the behavior of others.
Finally, the physical and in person aspects of the game increases the stakes and consequently, player’s investment. We played two rounds of Avalon and since we did not have the physical game with us, we played the first round using a mobile app to handle voting and chose the missions and the second round with physical UNO-like cards that served as voting cards. The difference between the two games was stark. Even after playing the first round, one of the players who was experienced with the game exclaimed “Playing it online makes it so boring!” After playing the second round with physical cards, it was clear how much of a difference there was. While in the first round, there was little disagreement with selecting and approving the missions, in the second round, the discussions were lengthy and heated. The final discussion in the second round took almost half of the entire game! Forcing players to verbalize their choices for the missions encouraged more discussion and helped make everyone feel engaged as contrasted to choosing players on the phone. Additionally, when using the physical cards to vote, everyone’s attention was brought together when the votes were revealed. In contrast, in the online version, everyone just looked at their individual phones to see the results, which decreased the personal investment. This investment in the game was crucial to the strong relationships formed through further gameplay, which largely appeared in the second round.
Overall, Avalon successfully brings together friends and strangers and helped me realize how easily I form friendships when there’s a strong sense of trust and motivation. The mechanics of the game strongly encourage these relationships, however, perhaps the theme could be more effective on this front. The high fantasy theme of good and evil was somewhat confusing to new players, especially due the similarity of many of the character’s names. I think a more modern theme, perhaps between warring animal tribes, would be more easily adopted and help make the game more effective.
Ethics Question
In general, we tend to view lying as morally wrong, but many games incorporate lying, bluffing, etc. as a core mechanic. Does lying as a part of a game constitute a wrong action? If not, what is so special about games that they permit us to lie to our friends?
One key element of games, described in the reading about what games are, is the fact that in games, the stakes are much lower or nonexistent. Oftentimes, lying can cause harm because the person being lied to is being hurt by missing or incorrect information. However, in a game, the consequences of not having information or having incorrect information is much lower by definition. Usually, the worst that can happen is that you lose. Thus, if you consider lying to be a wrong action because it can cause others harm, then lying in a game is likely not a wrong action. Additionally, many of these games come with the expectation that lying will occur. I think unexpected betrayal also plays a large role in the harm lying can cause and when you are playing a game, it is not unexpected when someone lies to you.Some moral philosophies, such as Kantian ethics, believe that lying is always wrong because allowing it means everyone should be able to do it all the time. I personally believe this specific viewpoint is somewhat extreme. The unique characteristics of the game minimize the harm caused by lying, so I believe it should not be considered a wrongful action.
