Team Chipmunk – Nicholai Khitrykh, Joseph Gu, Rohan Gonzalez, Lebriz Clayton, snoopy
Artist’s Statement
The main goal of Corruption is to provide a social deduction game that fosters friendly conflict between a group of people, encouraging discussion and interaction between the players. Corruption aims to give each player the opportunity to engage socially as a mechanism for advancing play, which is facilitated by the rotation of role cards with each round. This allows even shy players to engage in fellowship and help their team win as they progress through the game and the different roles. The game’s balanced task mechanics, allowing both strategy and chance to play major roles, establish an environment that fosters both tension and fun for all eager players willing to engage in a social deduction and bluffing game. With simple mechanics, players can focus on the various social dynamics between these roles and how they apply within a given round. We aim for Corruption to be a politically-themed social deduction game similar to other popular options, such as Secret Hitler, that is mechanically balanced and allows players to partake in low-stakes but engaging and dynamic gameplay.
Concept Map
Initial Decisions about Formal Elements and Values
Inspired by the positive experiences playing social deduction games in class, we wanted to make our own version that similarly revolved around the core fun elements of fellowship, challenge, and expression. Much like in Secret Hitler, we hoped to capture the exciting social dynamic that can come from games that encourage frequent and passionate communication. We additionally wanted the game not to so quickly exclude its players (i.e. by voting out, eliminating, etc.), to encourage social bonding and fellowship.
We found ourselves gravitating towards a politically themed speech-giving game, where players would attempt to infer each other’s affiliation based on elements of their speech. Hoping to further gamify this idea and increase its accessibility to a wider audience, we narrowed the speaking challenge down to lobbying other players for support in completing a task, which would give a point to the task’s respective team
Objective: Players are to pass the necessary amount of “lawful” tasks, without letting secret “corrupt” players sneak in “corrupt” tasks and reach their quota first.
Players: One main team of “lawful” players, and a second, smaller team of secret “corrupt” players. Players do not know each other’s affiliations.
Resources: Players will have task cards to attempt to satisfy, as well as tokens to vote for tasks with. Each player also has an initial assigned team affiliation, and cumulative team tasks satisfied are recorded on a provided counter. (In later iterations, players will also have rotating role cards.)
Procedures: Players will attempt to convince other players, who cannot see the task’s affiliation, as to how they should allocate their voting tokens to complete a task that is supposedly in their favor. Players will then apportion their tokens, and if satisfied, a task will be advanced for the task’s respective team. (In later iterations, players will also get the ability to add additional task cards to advance further tasks after the vote.)
Outcomes: A team wins if they reach the required number of completed tasks.
Boundaries: Players can (and are encouraged to) bluff and lie about their tasks, affiliation, etc. Players cannot falsely advance tasks outside of the rules, however (i.e., say they completed a task if they did not).
Testing and Iterations
Playtest 1: Initial Impression
Players: Two classmates unfamiliar with the game, two team members.
Positives:
- The core mechanics of the game were well-received (bluffing for tasks/social deduction of affiliations).
- Players liked being able to vote to allocate the money, and encouraging others’ votes to do the same.
- Many players were engaged and interested in how the department’s abilities influenced and changed gameplay as the game went on.
Aspects to Address:
- Some players were overwhelmed by the vast amount of information provided at once in both the department abilities and core gameplay rules, and the lack of clarity thereof. Rules had to be reiterated and explained numerous times.
- Our group addressed this issue by first tightening up the rules and then creating a rulesheet for each player to have access to during the game.
Analysis and Game Edits:
- It seemed there was a clear lack of goal in the game for the players. There was too much confusion with rules, and players did not see an immediate strategy for fun. Confusion limited fellowship.
- We removed the department-based roles from the game, replacing them with simpler roles that would rotate with each turn (Speaker, Elector, Vigil, Treasurer). This allows each player to more quickly become familiar with the roles and game structure.
- Task cards now each featured a “Lawful” or “Corrupt” action, so advancing the Task Meter in either category could be done by any affiliation of player (or by random). This allows for increased strategy options and a wider probability space.
- An additional phase after the initial task card and voting, where further task cards are added, allows for the game to proceed more quickly and allows for more opportunity for strategy.
Playtest 2: Big Changes
Players: Four classmates unfamiliar with the game.
Positives:
- The addition of roles increased player agency and familiarity with the game and rules.
- An updated rule sheet allowed players to more easily reference the game rules and more quickly grasp the procedure.
- The addition of task cards featuring both Corrupt and Lawful tasks allowed for increased opportunities to bluff and increased ambiguity for each bluff.
- The introduction of the Elector role and additional task cards being added after the Speaker/voting lets players who were previously at a massive disadvantage (such as a corrupt player who is being suspected by the rest of the lawful players) to have a chance to score and continue playing. Game balance increased.
Analysis and Game Edits:
- Gameplay did not change substantially between rounds. Once players grasped the rules, gameplay became repetitive until the final win condition was reached.
- Players mentioned the game seemed long. The beginning game was cumbersome in its learning of rules; the late game was repetitive.
- Corrupt and Lawful players have little reason to play the opposite team’s task card. Strategy and goals seem limited in scope for players of each team.
- Additional powers were added to the Task Meter that unlock at a certain number of Lawful/Corrupt task points. These allow for additional strategy and more short-term goals to increase the dynamism between rounds, as well as speed up late-game play.
- Further simplification and streamlining of rules to clarify common questions.
Final Playtest: More Polish, More Fun!
Players: Four players from outside class, unfamiliar with the game. Two were prior CS247G students.
Positives:
- Players very quickly understood the game mechanics and could play comfortably after the first round.
- Players deliberated on the social deduction aspects of the game where strategically advantageous. Strategies began to emerge.
- Late-game gameplay was sped up. Rounds were less repetitive and predictable.
Analysis and Game Edits:
- Players repeatedly put cards in the wrong piles, as the pile labels became obscured once a prior card was placed in them.
- The rule sheet was still frequently referenced during initial play to remember what roles do.
- More strategies can emerge if there are more corrupt players. Four players is a playable minimum, but six seems optimal.
- Simplified role descriptions were added to the role cards so players do not need to reference the rule sheet.
- Pile labels were moved outside of the task card piles so to not be obscured.
- The rule sheet was further simplified to address additional questions.
Final Playtest Video:
Important Moments:
(For reference: Player 1 bottom left, Player 2 top left, Player 3 top right, Player 4 bottom right)
8:18-8:41 | Player 3 tryies to deduce if player 2 is bluffing based on card patterning. Player 2 defends by stating they can ask the Vigil, showing a good understanding of roles and rules by both parties.
12:50-13:35 | Social banter and fun, while still having engagement with the game. Fellowship achieved!
14:18-15:05 | Deliberation on who is best to skip, and best associated strategy. A goal is in sight for players.
16:36-16:51 | Player 2 mentions it reminds them of other social deduction games, and players pitch in with their thoughts and enjoyment of such.
19:39-20:05 | Now thinking about the Vigil, Player 3 notes that the Vigil has been seemingly not doing their job/withholding information, putting doubt on Player 4. A counterargument is given by other player that there is potential for random chance, showing thought about strategy.
25:03-25:15 | Asking corrupt player if they were lying, etc. Engagement after the game and reflection.
Game Components
All art was made by our team members!
Game Board:
Game Card Art:
Task Meter:
