My team is explorinh a social deduction / resource management game that feels kind of like if Monopoly and Mafia had a baby. The basic idea is that players are trying to build a fair and equal society together, but hidden among them Capitalists who are secretly trying to accumulate welath and stop the group from reaching its collective goal. The most intersting prototype questions are about the systems that create tension, mistrust, and fun like we see in Mafia.
Does a shared resource pool actually make players feel dependent on each other?
- Why is this important?
- The core idea of the game is that players are collectively managing resources. If players don’t feel dependent on each other’s decisions, then the “shared society” concept won’t really matter.
- Prototype
- A simple paper prototype with a shared resource pool where players vote on how to allocate resources each round. We would compare this with a version where players control more of their own resources.
- Prediction
- I think the shared pool will create stronger discussion and tension between players, but it might also slow the pace of the game if decisions take too long.
How much visible inequality creates interesting tension
- Why is this important
- The game revolves around preventing extreme inequality, but if wealth difference become too obvious, players might identify the capitalist too easily
- Prototype
- Test versions where wealth differences grow slowly versus versions where wealth can increase rapidly.
- Prediction
- I think gradual inequality will work better because it creates suspicion and debate rather than immediately revealing the Capitalist. But there need to be secret incentives potentially even for socialists to try to accumulate wealth.
Do policy votes make the game more engaging or just slower?
- Why is this important
- Voting on economic policies (taxes, redistribution, etc.) could reinforce the theme of building a society, but it could also create downtime.
- Prototype
- Use a small deck of policy cards that players vote on each round to change economic rules.
- Prediction
- I think policies will be fun if they have clear and immediate effects, but boring if they feel too abstract or complicated.
Do personal side objectives create useful ambiguity
- Why is this important
- If only the Capitalist acts selfishly, their behavior may become too obvious. Personal objectives could make everyone behave unpredictably.
- Prototype
- Give each player a simple secret side objective (e.g., collect a certain resource or influence an industry).
- Prediction
- I think this will make the social deduction more interesting because players will have reasons to act selfishly that aren’t necessarily 100% tied to their ideology (more realistic too).
