Question 1: How long should the discussion phase be to balance gameplay tension without dragging?
- Importance: The discussion phase is key to the game’s main mechanic, where players try to identify imposters. If it’s too short, real players won’t have enough time to pick out imposters. If it’s too long, the game becomes tedious and can lose momentum.
- Prototype: A timed playtest where we experiment with different discussion time limits (30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, etc.) and see how good player engagement is and look at success rates of identifying the imposter.
- Prediction: A 1-minute timer will probably be optimal for smaller groups (3-6 players), while larger groups (7+) might need 2 minutes to allow for more people to speak and analyze responses.
Question 2: Does the “Transparent Votes” mechanic create interesting social dynamics or just lead to groupthink?
- Importance: Public voting could create good strategy through pressure and alliances, but it might also lead to players just following the majority rather than making their own independent decisions.
- Prototype: A comparative playtest where we run many games with both transparent and secret voting, then get player feedback on which one made gameplay more enjoyable.
- Prediction: Transparent voting will create more interesting social dynamics in friend groups who already know each other, while secret voting might work better with strangers who are less comfortable with confrontation.
Question 3: How difficult should the prompts be to create a balanced challenge for both real players and imposters?
- Importance: If prompts are too obscure, even real players might seem like imposters. If they’re too common, imposters can blend in. Finding the right balance is key for gameplay to be fair and engaging.
- Prototype: A prototype with three categories of prompts (easy, medium, difficult) that we can test across many game sessions to see which creates the most balanced/entertaining experience.
- Prediction: Medium prompts that most people would recognize but might not immediately know how to respond to will create the best gameplay. They give real players enough of an advantage while still allowing good imposters a chance to blend in.
Question 4: Does the “Under Pressure” mechanic effectively help pick out imposters or just add too much complexity?
- Importance: Additional mechanics like “Under Pressure” could add strategy and help identify imposters, but might also overcomplicate the game and slow down the pace.
- Prototype: An A/B test where we run the game with and without Under Pressure and measure both player enjoyment and how much it helps identify imposters.
- Prediction: Under Pressure will be valuable in games with 7+ players where more tools/resources are needed to identify imposters, but might not be necessary in smaller games where simpler discussion is enough.
Question 5: What is the optimal player count for maximum enjoyment and balanced gameplay?
- Importance: Different player counts largely change game dynamics in social deduction games. Finding the sweet spot makes sure the game is not too simple nor is it too chaotic.
- Prototype: A test where we run the game with different player counts (3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9+) using the same prompts and mechanics, then obtain feedback on enjoyment, tension, balance, pace, and other key metrics.
- Prediction: The game will be most balanced/enjoyable with 6-8 players (using 2 imposters), since this provides enough complexity for the discussion while still allowing everyone to participate meaningfully. Smaller groups might find the game too simple, while larger groups might grapple with everyone having enough time to contribute.
