1. Does introducing a hostage mechanism complicate the game in a way that is meaningful or distracting?
- Why this matters: This question addresses the role of a mechanism and factors into overall integration of user experience. Our game is centrally formulated around building conspiracy theories, so introducing a hostage mechanism would inevitably complicate gameplay from a battle of ideas to a battle of players, introducing personal stakes and shifting the focus of the game from simple judgment (whose conspiracy theory is funnier/better/etc.) to agentic roleplay (Do you want to rescue your hostage? What can the hostage do to save themselves?). This mechanism could open up the way for a whole host of other mechanisms, such as a ransom mechanism, an escape mechanism, etc. However, knowing that existing card games like Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity thrive with simple judgment mechanisms, the hostage mechanism could overcomplicate a tried-and-tested game design.
- Prototype type: We can prototype different ways a hostage situation arises: is it better for this mechanism to be merit-based (e.g. a team wins a certain number of times in a row and chooses a person to take hostage) or random (e.g. there are 5 “hostage” cards hidden in the conspiracy cards that a team can randomly draw)? We can also prototype the mechanisms for escaping a hostage scenario (e.g. the conspiracy team loses that round, the evidence team gives up 3 cards of the opposing team’s choosing) and consequences of not rescuing a hostage (e.g. Losing the round? Losing the equivalent of 3 rounds? Losing the entire game?)
- Prediction: The hostage mechanism will introduce richness to the gameplay, allowing players to feel more personally invested in their gameplay and their team members. However, it must be accompanied by an ecosystem of mechanisms: a rescue, a ransom, a disruption, etc. This can enrich the possibilities of gameplay overall (what if there was an assassin role, too? Or a Minister of Truth role?). However, there must not be so many mechanisms that players will feel overwhelmed and the point of the conspiracy component of the game is lost.
2. Should players be able to trade cards with one another?
- Why this matters: This question also asks after the role of an artifact, and how that role should be implemented or communicated. Should cards function as simple building blocks of a conspiracy theory/disproving evidence, or should they take on a slightly more complex role as both a commodity and a building material? Would allowing trading/bartering entail introducing an entire economic system to the game? Also, if there are only two existing teams (conspiracy and evidence) and they are able to trade cards, does this mean that all cards come from the same category (i.e. there is no difference between what constitutes a conspiracy card and what constitutes an evidence card)?
- Prototype type: 3 mechanisms: 1) Trade of least valuable cards: conspiracy and evidence cards are the same; each team can offer up to 3 cards they don’t want and review the other team’s offerings. Only an equivalent number of cards can be exchanged (i.e. if conspiracy team wants a card from evidence team, but evidence team doesn’t want any cards from conspiracy team, the trade is called off). 2) Trade of most valuable cards: conspiracy and evidence cards are the same; teams can “ask,” in broad strokes, for 1 card that they want: e.g. “do you have a card that represents a tool,” and if the other team has that card, they have to give it up. 3) conspiracy and evidence cards are different, each conspiracy theorist and each evidence collector/debunker works individually rather than in a team, the winner of the previous round can trade cards using either of the two mechanisms above within their role (e.g. conspiracy with conspiracy, evidence with evidence).
- Prediction: The “trade of most valuable cards” approach will not be viable because there are simply too many different cards for a player to be able to ask for something and actually receive it—odds are, what they need will not be among the other player’s options (though this could be mitigated by dividing cards into categories: location, person, object, etc.). Moreover, the fun of the game is in making unexpected, less-than-ideal card pairings work cohesively, so allowing the player to exercise will in “asking” for a specific card would disrupt this fun. Trade between individual players could be more successful than trade between 2 teams because there are more trade options; however, a way to divide roles (conspiracy vs evidence), whether or not roles can be switched, etc. must be worked out to make this gameplay viable.
3. How much power should the judge have?
- Why this matters: The game is centered around conspiracy theorists and evidence collectors/debunkers, but if this game continues to follow the Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity model, a nontrivial amount of power will be assigned to the judge. Given the other potentially complicating mechanisms that might be introduced to create new roles and make players feel more personally invested in the game (see question 1), should the judge still retain complete and totalizing power over who wins and loses?
- Prototype type: Prototype different mechanisms to overturn/overthrow the judge’s decision alongside the traditional model of a judge’s total power: 1) Control: the judge retains total power over who wins each round: was the conspiracy theory more convincing, or was the evidence more convincing? 2) Appeal: the losing team can contest the judge’s decision by forcing the winning team to incorporate an unused card into their storyline, but this mechanism can only be used a limited number of times in the entire game and they can still lose their appeal. 3) Jan 6th: the losing team can initiate a coup to overthrow the judge by drawing 5 new cards to overwrite their old story. Players will find an outside party to determine if the coup is successful. If the judge is overthrown, the game ends.
- Prediction: The control prototype will work. The contest prototype will also work, so long as the rest of the game hasn’t been over complicated by other mechanisms. The Jan 6th prototype will be funny, but maybe not as relevant to gameplay (it is also currently underdeveloped and needs more fleshing out).
