After reading What do Prototypes Prototype?, I’ve come up with a few questions I’d want my group’s prototypes to answer in order to test the mechanics of my group’s game and the dynamics they produce.
For context, we’ve decided that we would be working on a social deduction game placed in an island. The goal is for the individuals to escape the island, and an odd-on-out attempting to sabatoge the group and leave the island themselves. Everyone else has their own role and hidden agenda (agendas might look like slipping a specific phrase into conversation, manipulating a player to do a certain action, like a fist bump, etc. all without being detected by other players) to complete before they can leave the island, so with our prototype we would want to nail down the specifics of these mechanics and what would allow for a fun game experience.
Questions:
- How many agendas should each player have for a sweet spot of enjoyment?
This question is key because it shapes the game’s pacing and determines how balanced the odds are for the odd-one-out to succeed. If there are too few missions, the impostor might get steamrolled before they’ve had a real chance to deceive. Too many, and the game risks overstaying its welcome or losing tension.
To prototype this, we plan to play multiple rounds of our game with varying agenda counts for each player, adjusting upwards to see how much we can streamline while preserving the fun. We’ll begin with one agenda per player and scale up to see what feels right, gathering feedback afterward, the win ratio of each team, and how long rounds take.
Our current hunch is that 3 agendas will hit the sweet spot: it offers a satisfying arc and allows room for the group to catch patterns (or be misled), while still being short enough to keep momentum. 1-2 might feel too quick, especially with larger groups, and five might drag on unless there are ways to escalate tension or introduce twists toward the end.
- What types of agendas should each player have?
Because there will be a narrative involved with what players are trying to do (leave an island), we want to iterate based on Among Us where there are only two roles: imposters and crewmates, and repeatedly being a crewmate can become stale. In our game, every player who is not the odd-one-out will have a role based on pre-designed personas (e.g. “The Lovers,” “The Heiress,” “The Scientist,” etc.) that come with their unique set of agendas. By giving each player a unique role and personal goal, we aim to create narrative depth and give everyone a reason to stay engaged, even if they’re not the odd-one-out.
We’ll develop a small set of pre-written roles with a range of goals that vary in type (verbal/physical, trying to do something themselves without others noticing, or trying to get others to do something without noticing) and survey participants with which agendas felt were most engaging to them. E.g. The Lovers must survive together to be able to leave the island, switch seats without other players noticing, etc.
I predict that physical actions will be preferred, being a fun way to spice it up and give the players more dynamic challenges. I think these might be a bit more difficult to pull off without notice, but that this extra challenge would create interesting dynamics between players trying clever ways to pull them off
- What voting structure works best: open voting or secret ballot?
Our voting mechanism will be a key moment, as it is in any social deduction game- it determines who stays, who leaves, and how trust is negotiated in the group. The way voting is handled can significantly affect player behavior, with open discussion encouraging debate, but can be dominated by loud voices or groupthink. On the other hand, secret ballots allow players to vote honestly without fear of retaliation, but may reduce opportunities for bluffing or persuasion.
We’ll prototype both systems: one where players openly state who they suspect before a public vote, and another where voting is anonymous. We’ll observe how these different structures affect tension, engagement, and perceived fairness. We’ll also collect feedback on which format felt more satisfying to participate in.
I predict that secret ballots will lead to more honest, chaotic gameplay, allowing players to act on private suspicions without fear of judgment. I can also see this leading to interesting dynamics where people lie about who they voted for. However, I also expect that some players will miss the drama and persuasion dynamics that come with open voting, so we’ll just have to wait and see!
Optional Sketchnote:
