I was part of Group 2, and we made the game 1792, (prev. Let Them Eat Cake). When our group first got to talking about games we enjoyed, themes of psychology and connection came up a lot. All of our favorite games are ones that bring a group of people together, something that people want to pull out every game night, and think about a lot after. I knew going into this that my interests in teaching something leaned historical, and our group brainstorming showed the same.
[Image of our first brainstorming, where the dominant themes were social deduction games.]
As we started thinking more about historical events involving deduction, we had a lot of fun thinking about events where suspicion and betrayal reigned, like the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, and the French Revolution. We were really excited about the French Revolution and the interesting mechanics and characters we could employ, as well as the aesthetic possibilities the theme lends itself to.
After we landed on a social deduction game about the French Revolution, I thought a lot about how we would differentiate from games like Blood on the Clocktower, Mafia, and Werewolf. I like the direction we went with no narrator, because unlike these games where someone can’t play, everyone can enjoy the game together. It was fun to think about different things we could teach, from the feelings of the French Revolution, to the actual historical understanding. Because of the environment of the French Revolution, it felt like both were very important, and we wanted people to be able to connect these experiences to real world situations involving propaganda and protest, which I think we were able to achieve.
I was really interested in how the balance of the Royalists and Revolutionaries would work out, and if people would feel actually immersed in their characters. What surprised me most was how the mechanics started teaching on their own. The simple draw-two and discard-one Resource decision made people talk about credibility (“I swear I kept Rally”) without anyone prompting it. The sabotage moments created just enough uncertainty for rumors and tense conversations. The rotating Presidency also gives everyone a turn at deciding the narrative, while the Crisis Levels punished indecision in a way that felt thematically true. Watching others play was genuinely fun and people committed to their roles more than I expected. Because we wanted this game to be inclusive, it also suited quiet players who found their moment when the table needed their vote.
Going forward, I think it’s important to start playtesting very early with just the basic mechanics. It’s also important to playtest with different amounts of people, since this changes the dynamic of play a lot. Thinking about the game and how it’s different for 5 people vs. 10 people beyond the amount of cards was something I hadn’t thought about previously. I’m also leaving with a clearer idea that if I want to teach through play, I should embed this into the game mechanics and let the learning emerge rather than force it, such as through jargon on cards. I could see using this approach again, plus adding a short tutorial round and a quick debrief so people can connect their decisions back to the real history we’re trying to share!
