Within your response, please also include a brief reflection upon the ethical question tied to your game’s theme.”
I played the game Avalon at SUMaC a few years ago. The game’s mechanics involved two sides (“good” servants vs “evil” minions) in the story background of King Arthur’s court. Unlike games like Werewolf or Mafia, where the identities of the “evil” side are initially concealed to “good” players, the “Merlin” player is fully aware of who the “villains” are. Thus, the “good” side in Avalon does not suffer as much from lack of information in the beginning, which helps promote active discussion instead of un-enthusiasm stemming from player uncertainty. Instead, the focus throughout the game is logic and persuasion, as “Merlin” tries to rally the “good” players to complete quests successfully, while the “evil” side attempts to stop them, either by infiltrating their ranks or by determining who “Merlin” is. Other optional special characters such as “Percival”, “Mordred”, “Morgana” have abilities which further complicate gameplay, creating more possibilities when interpreting player actions and interactions.
When I was playing as “Merlin”, I would try to conceal my identity by being reticent until I could accuse “evil” players based on their actions. Therefore, other “good” players would often speak first, sometimes drawing the attention of the “evil” side away from me. However, if the other “good” players were being misled by the “evil” side, it would be hard to convince them otherwise while not attracting suspicion, leading to failed quests. To further dispel suspicions of being “Merlin”, I intentionally act whimsically whenever I am on the “good” side. This penchant is known among my friends, who describe my playing style as “weird” because they have difficulty interpreting my actions, but they seem to be unaware of my greater strategy.
As a “good” player, I did not have any information about player identities, so I would have to make educated guesses based on the feasibility of their arguments. Noticeably, I would be unable to handle long speeches from players, and when faced with a web of reasoning involving numerous assumptions and disproofs, I would “zone out” and begin to label the speaker as either “Merlin” or “evil”. My intuition was that talkative players were more likely to be “evil”, since “good ” players either had to conceal their identity as “Merlin” or were unsure about player identities. However, “Merlin” might also speak out when worried about the voting for quests, and in the face of such uncertainty, I would sometimes make flawed decisions based on whether I like the player in question or not.
When on the “evil” side, my preferred strategy would be to pick a player among the good side as my model and generally make the same votes as they do. This would allow me to infiltrate their ranks, and also give me clues on the identity of “Merlin” based on which player(s) spoke out against me. However, this strategy would sometimes backfire when other “evil” players also practiced infiltration tactics, since the “good” side might gain enough votes for quests and end up winning.
