As my team and I are creating a social deduction game where players get to reveal information to a player of their choosing each round through handwritten “rumors”, I decided to analyze another social deduction game for this critical play. Coup is a card game that was created by Indie Boards & Cards in 2012 and can be played by 2-6 players that are 14+. This game would be enjoyed by those who just want to play a quick bluffing game with their friends since rounds typically last less than 15 minutes. In addition, those who are competitive, enjoy roleplaying, and reading others’ body language would be especially drawn to this game.
As a first-time player of Coup, I appreciated the fact that set up and rules were simplistic enough for me to understand almost immediately. However, the simplicity of rules meant that in order to win, the challenge of the gameplay is to come up with a good strategy on the fly. This is similar to our game where set up only requires players to choose a player that they love and hate and the goal is to make as many correct guesses about who other players like and dislike in a set number of rounds. Though the simplicity is present in both games, the game strategy differs drastically. For Coup, it often requires consideration of resources and boundaries, since the game ends when one player remains. In this game, resources were coins that enabled coup/assasination of another player. Thinking several rounds ahead with consideration of 0thers’ roles of Captain, Duke, etc. allow players to envision consequences of each turn and when endpoints (death/win) would be reached. I was often short-sighted and struggled with this long-term strategy in the rounds I played. There was a round where the player after me had more than 7 coins and could coup, and I still decided to challenge them because of pure skepticism. I basically self-sabotaged as I ended up losing my challenge and then got couped on their turn.
In our game, since boundaries are predetermined by the set number of rounds, the path to arriving at the zero-sum outcome differs than that of Coup. The strategy involves less of the long-term consideration of possible outcomes and moreso establishing your allies early on and relying on social deduction skills to determine who is giving you truthful information. This can be immensely challenging when players with the killer profile play the game and decide to spread misinformation just for fun in order to sabotage other players. The curveballs thrown by killers can be somewhat mediated by socializers, who may be willing to talk out loud in order to reveal information for the greater good. In our playtest on Tuesday, when a player (LA) received a rumor (from LU)Â that was really confusing to her, she decided to publically confront LU with some reasons why she thinks he hates her. This was a turning point in the game as the first public accusations were made (Sidenote: LU told LA he hates her when he actually loves her, he did not understand the rules in the first round…). After this, players were visibly more excited and engaged in the gameplay.
Since the information reveal/exchange in this game occurs through written rumors, getting players to talk can be a challenge, especially when socializers are not playing. However, when players do talk, there is more variety in content than in Coup. On the other hand, dialogue always occurs in Coup, but it usually was limited to explicit in-game actions such as taking coins, performing actions for a role, or challenging a player. Because the relationships in Coup are more straightforward and usually relate to blocking an action or taking coins, players are less inclined to roleplay and experience fantasy and narrative. Also because Coup is supposed to be fast, it would feel out of place if a player started constructing lore about why the Contessa and Assassin are secretly in a relationship. The tensest moments were usually when a player challenged and casted doubts on another player’s role, but that tense energy usually faded quickly after the challenge was resolved. In our game, because we are making players play as themselves and choose two very strong relationships they have with other players, it’s easier for players to play the game with strong emotions and conjure narratives about the dynamics. (Love and hate are very emotionally charged!) In addition, players in our game can also experience stronger fellowship than in Coup because of there is one clear alliance that you can establish and always benefit from (you score points for every correct guess the person you love makes). In Coup, you may be able to establish temporary alliances, but there is no incentive to keep them once your goal has been reached. At the end of the day, you’re trying to play until one remains, so it’s harder to rely on another player the entire round when both of you are trying to gain the upper hand. Since there is no player elimination in our game, there is more room to develop complex social dynamics such as trust, betrayal, and negotiation over the course of several rounds.
To summarize, although both Coup and our game are social deduction games with a zero-sum outcome, the strategery involved differs because of robustness of relationships and the resources involved. The differences in relationships affect the level of fellowship experienced by players and the variation in dialogue.
