Stella Li
Ingrid Nordberg
Niam Shah
Blog Post
Artist’s Statement
The earth is flat, Paul McCartney died in 1966, and birds aren’t real. What’s your favorite conspiracy theory?
In this game, players are asked to advance their own conspiracy theories while debunking others’. Each round of Conspiracy begins with a conspirator, who draws a Subject, an Object, and an Action card to use as the basis of their theory. Another player, known as the skeptic, then uses Evidence cards to refute this conspiracy. After interrogation and debate, in which onlooking players have the option of joining either side by adding their own Evidence cards to the mix, remaining non-participating players judge whose reasoning is more believable, declaring a winner. As the game progresses, these roles shift so that all players can experience being a conspirator, a skeptic, and a judge.
As an improvisational narrative game, Conspiracy empowers its players to shed self-judgment and tap into the wildest corners of their imagination. It draws inspiration from Funemployed (Mattel), a game in which players draw qualification cards to explain why they should be hired, and Superfight (Skybound), a game in which players create superheroes by drawing attributes from a deck and explaining why their superhero would win against the villain. However, Conspiracy is more debate-focused than its predecessors—the real fun lies in the dispute between conspirators and skeptics, not the pitch of the original conspiracy itself. During this lively back-and-forth, players can augment their arguments with Evidence cards, making for a dynamic gameplay in which players can more meaningfully interface with abstract concepts such as truth, belief, and morality. Ultimately, Conspiracy asks players to grapple with the boundary between objective truth and subjective truth, gaining empathy for people with differing beliefs in the process.
Target Audience
Broadly speaking, Conspiracy’s target audience is any group of people ages 16 and up who want to engage with each other on a deeper level.
Thus, Conspiracy can be split into three major use cases: it can serve as an icebreaker for people who don’t know each other, a vessel for deepening connections amongst friends, and a narrative exercise for creatives such as writers, playwrights, and screenwriters. Players that fall into the first category—the icebreaker case—may struggle the most with Conspiracy. As an improv game, it requires a level of vulnerability that not all users might feel comfortable with. At the same time, however, the game encourages group buy-in—once one person takes a step forward, a baseline level of trust is established, facilitating smoother gameplay. Thus, players that fall into the second category—the friendship case—might find Conspiracy approachable and lower stakes, a tool for deepening existing relationships. Those who fall into the third category—the creatives—might use Conspiracy as a brainstorming tool or creativity exercise, both practical and interpersonal. Of course, ethical considerations must be accounted for—for example, given these three use cases, it is important that players largely fall into the same category of familiarity. If, for example, the entire group except for one person knows each other, the stranger risks feeling left out. Thus, if Conspiracy is played with different levels of connection within the group, everyone must make an active effort to be positive and inclusive.
Concept Map
Initial Decisions about Formal Elements and Values
Our initial premise called for 5-12 players over the age of 16. These players would play in teams, with a single judge deciding between the two sides. The objective was to rack up wins within one’s team, and teams would switch between conspirator and skeptic each round. Working in teams, we believed, would enhance the fellowship aesthetic of the game—players would develop a sense of loyalty and familiarity within their teams. Moreover, having a single judge would result in a more impactful decision, with the primary tension being not between conspirators and skeptics, but actually in the suspense of waiting to see who the judge would choose.
We designed this game with inspiration from card judgment games. We knew we wanted players to randomly choose a few cards from which they could create a narrative. However, we wanted to make sure each draw would include all the “ingredients” necessary for a conspiracy—for example, a draw of only “Marilyn Monroe,” “Donald Trump,” and “Elvis” or a draw of only “killed,” “candelabra,” and “security camera” would both be imbalanced. Thus, we split our cards into categories—subject (the main subject of the theory), object (usually an object involved in the theory), and action (the link tying the subject and object together). This combination of cards allows for maximal narrative possibility, allowing players to fully lean into the expression aesthetic of the game. Initially, the Evidence cards were resources only available to the skeptic team. We also included a set of “In a world…” cards that players could use to constrain the conspiracy to specific conditions (e.g. “In a world where monkeys have taken over…”). All players would draw 3 Evidence cards, and the conspirator would draw 3 conspiracy cards, one from each category of subject, object, and action.
Testing and Iteration History
We playtested in class, during section, and amongst our own friends, recording notes from over a dozen rounds of play.
Playtest 1
Our first set of playtests occurred in class, with players who were largely unfamiliar with one other. In general, there was a lot of nervous laughter, hesitancy, and amused smiles. Although we had planned to playtest between teams, we found team formation difficult with a small number of playtesters, so we decided to stick to one conspirator and one skeptic.
In one round, the conspirator struggled to come up with a theory using just the three conspiracy prompts, and the other players asked multiple clarifying questions about the debunking mechanism. However, the pace and intensity of the game increased when the first evidence card was played, eliciting buy-in amongst all players. In another round, while the playtesters were equally unfamiliar with one another, their personalities seemed more outgoing, resulting in more lively debate and laughter from the get-go. Generally, playtesters were able to finish a round of gameplay decisively, despite some confusion about rules.
We learned that it was sometimes difficult for the conspirator to defend their point if they couldn’t present more evidence, so we decided to allow both conspirators and skeptics to play with Evidence cards in addition to the conspiracy cards themselves. Additionally, players found the points system and the “In a world…” cards confusing—so we simplified the points rules and decided to playtest further to see what others thought about the “In a world…” cards.
Playtest 2
Our second playtest happened in section. Players were more familiar with one another, resulting in smoother gameplay and more intense banter. We learned that players thought the fun of the game lay in its ridiculousness and their ability to come up with different theories, and that they particularly enjoyed being able to debate one another. Players also enjoyed debriefing the judges’ decisions at the end, reflecting on the overall gameplay.
In this playtest, we decided to eliminate the “In a world… cards” because they seemed challenging and obstructive to work with. We also decided to extend the “debate” time from 1 minute to 2.
Playtest 3
Our third playtest happened in lecture. In one round, 2 other players joined the conspirator’s side to gang up on the one skeptic, leaving only one player to serve as judge. Players noted that they preferred to be able to work in teams, expressing that they had fun brainstorming ways to use their evidence to help their preferred side. In these rounds, we noticed that some of our evidence was very specific, whereas other scenarios were quite vague, and that the more specific and “out-there” the evidence was, the more successful the round was (e.g. the rate of laughter was higher).
We thus implemented a few changes. Firstly, we implemented a “teaming up” mechanism: in a game of 3-6 players, 1 player could join each side, provided there was at least one person remaining to judge. In a game of 6-10 players, up to 2 players could join each side. This change was meant to increase the number of interactions between different combinations of players, with each alliance built contributing to a sense of affinity between players that could eventually result in a sense of reciprocity (e.g. joining the same players, returning the favor) and fellowship. We also edited the copy on our evidence cards to be more specific (e.g. $50,000 donation → $50,000 donation to Petco).
Playtest 4
This playtest occurred outside of class, amongst friends. In this playtest, we were concerned with the stakes of the game: how could we get players to feel more invested, beyond preexisting friendship dynamics? Playtesters also noted that they didn’t feel particularly concerned with points—they were more invested in the narrative of the game. They demonstrated eagerness to come up with their own narratives (e.g. players were recorded as having asked, “Can I be the next playtester|?”).
To increase stakes, we introduced the debate token, which would allow players to double the number of points they received if they won, with losers actively losing points (rather than not receiving any points). By raising the stakes, we aimed to enhance the buy-in and sense of fellowship between players.
Playtest 5
Our final playtest occurred amongst a group of creative writers. It was during this playtest that we began considering the use case of Conspiracy as a brainstorming exercise. Players noted that although the content of the game was not applicable to their personal projects, they found that making connections between seemingly disparate entities was a good creative exercise that even helped one player get unstuck in their own project.
These playtesters noted that they felt more connected to the game content when it included real-life figures, specifically celebrities or pop culture entities. For example, when the Queen Elizabeth card was played, debate was much livelier. In response to this feedback, we edited the copy on our cards again to be more culturally relevant.
Link to or embedding of final prototype, design mockups, and print-n-play
Video of the Final Playtest
