1. How does having transparent voting vs. blind voting affect voting in social deduction games?
Why is this important?
The voting phase is where a lot of the social pressure and strategy happens in a deduction game. Transparent voting like raising could encourage people to follow the crowd or vote more cautiously, while blind voting may encourage more honest or bold votes.
Prototype
I think we could test one round of the game using blind voting and one round using transparent voting. I’ll observe whether people seem more strategic, hesitant, or reactive depending on the method. Afterward, I’ll ask players how each method felt to them.
My guess
I think transparent voting will lead to more people to just follow what other people are doing, especially if one or two players are vocal. Blind voting might create more chaotic but truthful results, since players won’t worry as much about what others think of their vote.
2. How does introducing a strict timer during the discussion phase affect the pacing of the game?
Why is this important?
The discussion phase is where most of the social deduction happens, but without limits it can easily drag or lose momentum. A timer might help keep the game moving and encourage people to be quick and decisive under pressure, but it might also cut conversations short or increase stress. Finding the right balance is key.
Prototype
We could run playtests with a 1-minute timer for discussion and compare them to untimed discussions or longer-timed rounds (like 2 minutes). We will observe the energy of the group and ask players which pace felt better.
My guess
I think the 1-minute timer will make early rounds feel a little too fast, especially if people don’t know each other. But by later rounds, it might actually boost intensity and make it feel more like a party game. I suspect players will appreciate the fast pace once they get into the rhythm.
