My group is generally looking to make a game that has some element of deception between different groups, and some sort of incentive for each side to uncover the “lies” as the game goes on, but still participating in a larger game (as in, the deception exists within a broader system/objective).
Does deception feel like a natural strategy within the broader game objective, or does it feel like a separate mini-game?
This is important to answer because our core design goal is that deception exists inside a larger system rather than being the whole point. If the two layers feel disconnected, the game loses its identity entirely. This is a role prototype question, since we are testing whether deception serves a functional purpose in the player experience rather than examining how it looks or how rules are written. We plan to layer a simple bluffing rule on top of an existing game like Mafia or Monopoly and observe whether players treat deception as a core strategy or ignore it in favor of the main objective. We predict that deception will only feel natural if there is a direct mechanical consequence tying it back to the main game, like losing resources or territory when caught.
Do players feel a genuine incentive to both deceive and investigate without being explicitly told to?
If players need to be reminded that deception is an option, or never bother investigating because the payoff is unclear, then the game fails on its own terms. This matters because the whole system depends on both sides actively participating in the deception loop. This is a look and feel prototype, testing whether the moment-to-moment experience of suspicion and accusation feels satisfying enough to act on organically. We plan to introduce a fake resource mechanic into a simple trading game and watch whether players begin investigating each other on their own. We predict players will investigate more frequently when the reward for catching someone is immediate and concrete rather than abstract, like gaining their resource on the spot.
Does the game feel fair to both the deceivers and the investigators at the same time?
If one role feels significantly more powerful than the other, players on the weaker side will disengage, which breaks the dynamic we are trying to create. This question is particularly important because our game involves groups rather than individuals, meaning power imbalances can cascade quickly across a team. This is an integration prototype question because fairness only surfaces when all the moving parts are running together simultaneously, touching role, feel, and rule structure at once. We plan to run a short full playthrough with real players and track who expresses frustration and at what point in the game. We predict the investigator side will feel underpowered in the first pass, meaning the reward for catching a deceiver will likely need to be higher than feels intuitive at first.
How much information should each side have access to, and when?
Information asymmetry is the engine of our game, but too little information makes players feel helpless while too much makes deception trivially easy to detect. Getting this balance right early will save us from designing a lot of mechanics that rest on a broken foundation. This is closer to an implementation prototype, since we are testing whether the information structure can actually support the tension we want. We plan to run a paper prototype where we manually control what each group sees by passing folded notes, adjusting the flow between rounds. We predict that the sweet spot involves giving investigators one strong but ambiguous clue per round rather than letting evidence accumulate gradually, since gradual accumulation tends to feel slow until the very end.
