As a modification for Clue, I think this will end poorly. But I think the idea of a rationalist board game is one that could end well.
Boil this down to the essentials. What is the goal of the game? What is the victory condition? What is the core mechanism?
Here’s a brief guess/sketch:
The game is designed to teach reasoning under uncertainty. The victory condition could be either coming to the correct conclusion first or having come to the best conclusions at lowest cost. The core mechanism is integrating new information with old information.
The tenor of the game will be set by the victory condition. A set of reveals- say there are three cards you want to guess, and they are flipped over one by one at various stages of the game- where people place bets for victory points seems superior to a race to one correct answer.
For example, let us consider a three player game. There are color cards, shape cards, and material cards. There are three cards of three types (red, blue green; circle, triangle, square; wood, metal, glass). Each deck of 9 cards is shuffled, and one is removed at random and placed in order (so there is a color then a shape then a material). The remaining 24 cards are shuffled together and 8 cards are dealt to each player. Players now have incomplete and uncertain information- even if I hold 2 blue cards in my hand, the removed card might be blue. I can be certain it’s not blue if I hold 3 blue cards, but that doesn’t help me figure whether to bet on red or green.
Players share information somehow. How can be worked out later.
Players start off with, say, 6 tokens. After a set amount on information sharing, players must bet at least 1, but up to as many as they have, tokens on what the color card may be. The amount of the bid is not secret, but the color selected is (and they can bid on as many colors as they would like). A correct bet is doubled. Then there is another information-sharing phase, then the players bet on what shape was pulled out. Another information-sharing phase, then the players bet on what material was pulled out.
I think this would work best with fewer information-sharing rounds but high-quality information.
[edit] Note that this doesn’t really deal with the Bayesian issue of integrating new and old information, unless the information-sharing is built that way. It should be something better than just showing people cards.
[2023 edit]: A better game than my suggestion here is Figgie.
As a modification for Clue, I think this will end poorly. But I think the idea of a rationalist board game is one that could end well.
Boil this down to the essentials. What is the goal of the game? What is the victory condition? What is the core mechanism?
Here’s a brief guess/sketch:
The game is designed to teach reasoning under uncertainty. The victory condition could be either coming to the correct conclusion first or having come to the best conclusions at lowest cost. The core mechanism is integrating new information with old information.
The tenor of the game will be set by the victory condition. A set of reveals- say there are three cards you want to guess, and they are flipped over one by one at various stages of the game- where people place bets for victory points seems superior to a race to one correct answer.
For example, let us consider a three player game. There are color cards, shape cards, and material cards. There are three cards of three types (red, blue green; circle, triangle, square; wood, metal, glass). Each deck of 9 cards is shuffled, and one is removed at random and placed in order (so there is a color then a shape then a material). The remaining 24 cards are shuffled together and 8 cards are dealt to each player. Players now have incomplete and uncertain information- even if I hold 2 blue cards in my hand, the removed card might be blue. I can be certain it’s not blue if I hold 3 blue cards, but that doesn’t help me figure whether to bet on red or green.
Players share information somehow. How can be worked out later.
Players start off with, say, 6 tokens. After a set amount on information sharing, players must bet at least 1, but up to as many as they have, tokens on what the color card may be. The amount of the bid is not secret, but the color selected is (and they can bid on as many colors as they would like). A correct bet is doubled. Then there is another information-sharing phase, then the players bet on what shape was pulled out. Another information-sharing phase, then the players bet on what material was pulled out.
I think this would work best with fewer information-sharing rounds but high-quality information.
[edit] Note that this doesn’t really deal with the Bayesian issue of integrating new and old information, unless the information-sharing is built that way. It should be something better than just showing people cards.
[2023 edit]: A better game than my suggestion here is Figgie.